20220315DSM Supplement 2.pdf

MARCH 15 20222120S U P P L E M E N T 2
E VA L U AT I O N
D E M A N D - S I D E
M A N A G E M E N T
ANNUALREPORT
Printed on recycled paper
SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT
This document may contain forward-looking statements,
and it is important to note that the future results could
differ materially from those discussed. A full discussion
of the factors that could cause future results to differ
materially can be found in Idaho Power’s filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 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 ................................................................................................ 33
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................. 37
Research/Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 167
Evaluations ................................................................................................................................ 215
Other Reports ........................................................................................................................... 569

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 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 validation of
energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its programs. Idaho
Power considers primary and secondary research, 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 2021, Idaho Power contracted with ADM Associates and Tetra Tech to conduct program
evaluations for the A/C Cool Credit (impact, ADM Associates), C&I Custom Projects (impact and
process, Tetra Tech), Flex Peak (impact, Tetra Tech), Heating and Cooling Efficiency (impact and
process, ADM Associates), and Irrigation Peak Rewards (impact, Tetra Tech) programs.
In 2020, Idaho Power contracted with DNV to conduct a process evaluation on the Home
Energy Reports program. However, due to some late findings, additional analysis was required
to complete the evaluation, which was finalized in June 2021. Idaho Power also contracted
Tetra Tech to conduct a process evaluation on the Small Business Direct Install program in
2020. The start of the evaluation was delayed until the second quarter of 2021 to allow time for
additional installs to be completed after the program was suspended in early 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation was completed in October 2021.
AM Conservation Group conducted a program summary analysis of Student Energy Efficiency
Kits and Commercial Saving Kits programs. Harris Utilities conducted a summary analysis for the
Home Energy Reports Program. While external impact evaluations were conducted on all three
demand response programs, the company also conducted internal analyses for the Flex Peak
and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs.
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report
Throughout 2021, 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 listed above are included
in this Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 3
EVALUATION PLAN
Energy Efficiency 2010–2023 Program Evaluation Plans
Program Evaluation Schedule 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions ............................................................. I/P
Energy House Calls....................................................................... I/P
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program ......................................... I/P I/P
Home Energy Audit ...................................................................... I/P I
Home Energy Reports .................................................................. I P
Multifamily Energy Savings Program ........................................... I/P I/P
Rebate Advantage ....................................................................... I
Residential New Construction Program ....................................... I I/P
Shade Tree Project ....................................................................... I O O
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers .................... O O
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ......................... O O
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits .................................................... I/P
Custom Projects ........................................................................... I/P I P
New Construction ........................................................................ I/P I P
Retrofits ....................................................................................... I/P I P
Small Business Direct Install ........................................................ I P
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ....................................................... I I/P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit ............................................................................ O O I O I O O
Flex Peak Program ....................................................................... O O I/O O O O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards ............................................................... O O I/O O O O O
Evaluation Type: I = Impact, P = Process, O = Other
:

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report
Program Evaluation Schedule 2016 20151 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions ........................................................
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 Program ..................................
Shade Tree Project .................................................................. P
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 ....................................................................... I I O P O
Flex Peak Program .................................................................. I/O I/O P/O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards .......................................................... O I/O I/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

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES
The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on February 10, May 5, August 12,
and November 10, 2021.

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated
Present:
Don Strickler–Simplot
Wil Gehl–City of Boise Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Donn English–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Katie Pegan–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition John Chatburn-Idaho Governor’s Office
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power
Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Not Present:
Haley Falconer-City of Boise
Jim Hall-Wafd
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Guests and Presenters*:
Theresa Drake*–Idaho Power Chad Ihrig - CLEAResult
Chellie Jensen*–Idaho Power Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Shawna Potter*–Idaho Power Kevin Keyt-IPUC
Paul Goralski–Idaho Power Morgan Brummund- Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Tracey Burtch–Idaho Power Taylor Thomas-IPUC
Annie Meyer-Idaho Power Brad Iverson-Long-IPUC
Chad Severson-Idaho Power Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz-Idaho Power Becky Arte Howell-Idaho Power
Kathy Yi-Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Zack Thompson-Idaho Power Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Melissa Thom-Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Zack Thompson (Idaho Power), Paul Goralski (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30 am
Quentin kicked off the meeting with an agenda overview and turned it over to Rosemary for introductions. There
were no comments or questions on the November meeting notes.
9:35 am-Announcements
Theresa shared an Idaho Power CR&EE leadership update that Chellie Jensen has been selected as Commercial,
Industrial, and Irrigation leader, after Juliet Petersen’s transition to a new role with our Construction group.
2
In a Regulatory update, Connie highlighted the Idaho Public Utilities Commission approved the Company’s request to increase the Energy Efficiency Rider collection percentage to 3.10% from 2.75%, effective January 1,
2021. Additional evaluation of the future Energy Efficiency Rider funding level would occur once the amount of energy efficiency potential included in the 2021 IRP has been set as part of the IRP process.
9:39 am - 2020 Savings / Financial Results—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided preliminary energy savings results for 2020, including a comparison going back to 2002, showing 2020 had been another strong year with the second highest savings, just below the 2019 peak. Energy savings results were reviewed by energy efficiency sector and for the demand response programs, along with
Idaho and Oregon 2020 year-end Rider balances.
9:47 am – Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie provided a review of preliminary 2020 savings results for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs, which had a strong year, specifically the Custom offering and Irrigation, with the sector achieving 155% of 2020 target savings
Retrofits savings decreased in 2020 from 2019, and Idaho Power has heard some hesitation from customers to invest in energy efficiency due to COVID impacts and potential cash needs for future operations, inventory/supply issues, and contractors currently more focused on new construction. The Company is making
modifications to its offerings, first in March for Retrofits lighting, and in June for New Construction and Retrofits non-lighting measures. Modifications being evaluated include measure additions and changes to incentives, as well as evaluating state-level measure changes with the use of the UTC perspective in Idaho and TRC perspective
in Oregon.
Chellie reminded EEAG that the Small Business Direct Install program restarted activity October 2020 and concluded the year with 139 projects. The response to a January postcard mailing to potential participants has
been good and the contractor is expanding the installer pool to respond to that anticipate demand.
An update was provided on cohort activity for water/wastewater as well as schools for saving achievement, upcoming trainings, and where participants are on the SEM timeline. Going forward opportunities will be in smaller districts and one-offs, and Idaho Power is looking to engage with these schools as we hear about their interest with some support from current cohort community.
Break: 10:16-10:25
10:26 am - 2020 Residential Programs—Shawna Potter
Shawna started her presentation with 2020 Residential programs performance which were 151% of target goal. Impacts from activity suspensions which occurred or remain ongoing due to COVID-19 were noted in program savings. An EEAG member asked a question on the preliminary well-above 2020 goal Home Energy Report savings and the likelihood of final savings being near the reported value. Quentin responded that when the 2020 goal was set, it was based on the pilot phase of the offering and because of the unknowns of the permanent offering, did not consider as many participants as ultimately were included in the rollout. Quentin also highlighted that we are still finalizing actual results and completing an evaluation now.
A refresh of COVID-19 impacts to programs was provided, and Shawna shared Idaho Power is creating waitlists and providing customer updates on program statuses, as well as evaluating virtual home energy audits. A marketing update included using electronic billboards which are weather triggered allowing the message to
change based on weather and continuing social media marketing presence with a focus on energy efficiency tips.
3
An update on energy savings kits distribution noted that the mail by request kit program ended December 31, 2020 due to decreasing cost effectiveness and participation saturation. Welcome and student kits will continue,
and the Company is looking at replacement options for the mail by request kits.
The residential new construction pilot program is transitioning program management as NEEA is ending their management and returning administration back to utilities at the end of February. Idaho Power has found a replacement vendor in Washington State University and transition to this vendor will occur over the next few months and new Idaho building codes, effective January 1, 2021, will also be included in program metrics.
Shawna shared that the Shade Tree program will be back in 2021 after events in 2020 were canceled due to COVID-19. A spring event will occur in the Treasure Valley and a fall event will occur in the Magic Valley. Trees will be mailed to customers’ homes to maintain participant, company, and vendor safety.
The Simple Steps retail lighting buydown replacement program managed by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) ended in September 2020. The Company will use CLEAResult as the vendor to manage a replacement program and is still evaluating a proposal from the vendor with the potential to launch a similar retail lighting buydown program in the next two months.
Finally, a timeline on the weatherization deep dive was provided and an update that Idaho Power had met with weatherization managers already and is incorporating their feedback before the deep dive session. Quentin will
send a doodle poll to EEAG members to set the day of the March weatherization deep dive.
10:57 am – Software/CRM Update—Theresa Drake
Theresa shared an update on software/administrative tools used at Idaho Power. The Company built a home-
grown tool over 15 years ago, which was adapted to include DSM activity tracking the last 10 years. This tool is used for budgets, outages, energy efficiency incentive payment management, and marketing, among other uses. In developing a road map to implement a more effective customer information management tool, the idea of a
CRM concept was introduced which can pull all customer insights together in once system. The CRM tool would alleviate the need to have several disparate applications to pull information together to get necessary customer insights. The CRM tool will be a company product, so not all of the functionality would be in direct support of
energy efficiency activity, but Idaho Power plans to allocate the proportion which is to Rider expense.
11:04 am – Wrap up
• Excited about the upcoming weatherization workshop and receiving more information of future changes impacting Oregon activity. Appreciate seeing all the great work adjusting programs and offerings through COVID. A question on the Shade Tree program was asked if there were energy savings
associated or just marketing? Quentin responded that we do claim energy savings and have completed evaluations supporting those claimed energy savings.
• Good meeting, nice to get prior year update. Idaho Power did good work in challenging times, looks good for next year. CRM program is interesting, have heard about in a variety of contexts, good to see evolution.
• Echo other EEAG member comments, savings during pandemic being second highest ever are fantastic. The weather-based electronic billboard is cool, Idaho Power is continuing to pursue more opportunities.
• Good meeting, interested in additional COVID impacts as things move forward. Initial industrial impacts were in the context of employee health, and while some health improvements or restrictions have
4
improved on local basis, many customers are still locked down. For the residential sector – interested to see data that more people working remotely and what impacts this might have on home energy use.
• Wanted to say “thank you” to Idaho Power and team for efforts last year, dedicated to maintaining activity. For the residential new construction pilot program, understand builders are already building
above code so are we paying for something already occurring? Would like to follow up with Idaho Power in next few weeks to talk about concern. Idaho Power committed to reach out to follow up on member’s concern and provide an update to EEAG at a future meeting.
• Would also be interested in residential new construction information around builders already building above code and would also like to hear more about how net to gross is treated in future. In response to
question on COVID-19 impact to residential energy use, NEEA is completing end use survey, studying meter info which will track changes in energy use consumption over the COVID period. In terms of today’s presentations, wanted to highlight that sharing trainings with EEAG provided opportunity to share
with colleagues, appreciated the openness to expand the training participation. Nice job in last year.
• Similarly echo appreciation, presentations and great work turned into great savings. Suggested that wrapped into the Weatherization 101 presentation might be how programs look going forward as 2020
was abbreviated and what happens to funding.
Rosemary noted May 5 is next meeting, EEAG has webpage on Idaho Power website with meeting dates.
Quentin thanked EEAG for participation and positive comments on how 2020 went and results with all the challenges.
11:17 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated May 5th, 2021 Webinar
Present:
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Don Strickler–Simplot
Wil Gehl– City of Boise Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Resources
Council

Not Present:
Jim Hall-WAFD

Guests and Presenters*:
Chellie Jensen*-Idaho Power Paul Goralski–Idaho Power
Shawna Potter*-Idaho Power
Chad Ihrig: Business development Franklin Energy Chris Pollow – Idaho Power
Nick Sayen: Oregon PUC staff Bob Turner Idaho Groundwater
Note Takers:
Chad Severson (Idaho Power) & Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
Rosemary convened the meeting with introductions. There were no comments or concerns regarding the February 10th notes. Theresa announced that Billie McWinn will be coming back from her temporary duty assignment to
2
lead the Residential team and that this will be Shawna Potters last EEAG meeting. Quentin announced that the DSM Annual Report was completed in March and the company submitted its DSM Prudence filing with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) and Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC). He asked members to email him if they wanted a hard copy of the DSM report mailed to them.

9:45 am-First Quarter Savings & Financial Results—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided portfolio energy savings and expenses, savings amounts by sector, and the Oregon and Idaho
Rider balances through March 31st, 2020. He discussed that the company recognizes the rider percentage needs to increase and the company is waiting for Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process to get farther along to complete a forecast and to determine timing. The company will engage with EEAG prior to making any final
recommendation on percentage increase or timing. One member pointed out that balance doesn't dictate energy efficiency activity, and that the company direction is to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency. One member commented that it is good to see Idaho Power continue to pursue all cost-effective EE and would like the company to come up with a funding strategy that takes a longer-term view of matching rider expenses with collection. Quentin also reviewed the program evaluation plan for 2021 and 2022.
9:55 am Commercial/Industrial/ Irrigation Programs—Chellie Jensen
Chellie provided updates and year-to-date savings for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs. She also provided an update on the status of prescriptive measure changes for the Commercial & Industrial program, performance data for Commercial Energy-Saving Kits, Small Business Direct Install, Energy Management Audit tool, compressed air audits, and the Cohort projects. She also discussed a new cohort for 50,001 certifications that
Idaho Power is partnering with Department of Energy on. The company asked EEAG for input on ideas to reach more commercial customers with the Energy-Saving Kits. One member suggested that Idaho Power field reps go door to door with the kits and to hand out at trade shows. Chellie asked for ideas on promoting 50,001 Ready
Cohort. One member commented that since it applies to larger customers, the Idaho Power Energy Advisors could provide outreach and advise customers. Chellie also presented a Day in the Life of a Custom Project highlighting the Simplot Cold Storage project. Don Strickler also discussed the project from Simplot’s point of view. He
commented that Simplot was able to streamline transportation and logistics and consolidate storage site. There have been other benefits to the company and sustainability efforts. Chellie asked for any comments or questions:
There was a recommendation to get the data points from the first M&V. One member thanked Don and Simplot for highlighting the extra benefits of their project. They also brought up something that John Gardner brought up before, the great french fry battery. Super cool. DR. It was stated that Simplot does participate in demand response at
the site. This is the first year and they were a little nervous. They had to reduce their nomination but after this year, they will look at it and will raise it in the future.
Chellie also provided an update on enrollments for Flex Peak and Irrigation Peak, the company’s demand response programs.
10:45 am- Residential Programs—Shawna Potter
Shawna provided preliminary year-to-date energy savings by program and customer participation. She also provided an update on COVID 19 impacts. She highlighted changes that have been made to the Shade Tree program, followed up with EEAG on future investigation on ways to improve the Weatherization programs, some
new residential measure exploration, and a market transformation effort that the company is working on with Avista for Ductless Heat Pumps. There were questions and comments around the recent stimulus bills that will provide funds for weatherization and what Idaho Power’s plan is for using that money. Shawna responded that
3
there is money from the CARE’s Act and Idaho Power will work with the CAP Agencies to promote them. The company has increased efforts via social media, there is a pop up on My Account, and postcards have been mailed
to customers. The company has promoted Energy Assistance and Project Share. Idaho Power has also worked with CAP Agencies in Oregon on ways to engage with the Health and Welfare Department to identify key contacts and other agencies that the company can partner with to promote the availability of this funding source. Theresa added that the company has been in contact with agencies on a regular basis, not just for weatherization but also Energy Assistance. One member asked if the company knows what is driving lower participation but higher savings in the Residential New Construction program. The company responded that there is a custom calculation for each home, so it could be any number of reasons. It could be a mix of single-family vs. multi-family homes, a percentage above code, or even a mix of different measures for each home.
One member asked about the costs of Shade Tree. The company will follow up with those numbers later. One member thanked the company for providing a Weatherization 101 and keeping EEAG updated. The company should streamline its process to reduce admin costs and increase impact. Another member suggested the company
look at the potential study to explore the economic potential of measures. One member asked how the company plans on addressing how savings will be calculated in the Brio DHP pilot. The Regional Technical Forum has done a lot of research on savings based on if these are an add on to a home instead of a replacement. Shawna
stated that the company will work with Brio
11:30 am- Marketing Overview—Annie Meyer
Annie provided an update on the types of energy efficiency marketing the company has done and is doing during
COVID-19. She discussed social media posts for residential and business customers, EE awareness campaign, Summer EE Guide, Summer EE contest, Renters Guide, Energy@Work newsletter, Lighting campaign and a NEEA heat pump water heater campaign. There were no comments from EEAG members.
11:45 am- Demand Response as a Resource—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented 2021 IRP analysis of DR programs and how the analysis has changed the premise of Idaho Power’s demand response programs from supplying peak needs to supplying net peak needs which moves the need to be later in the evenings. Quentin discussed plans to go about modifying the programs with a goal to do so in time for the 2022 demand response season. There were questions and comments about the company’s decision to move so quickly on changes to the program and that the timeline seems so rushed. Quentin commented that in order to make changes for next summer, a regulatory filing would need to happen this fall. This gives the company time to promote program changes this winter. The company has heard comments from IPUC Staff that
they would like to see changes to the program happen by 2022. These comments have come out of the IPR process and are urging the company to look at ways to make demand response programs more useful. Another member stated that if there are obvious changes that need to be made for 2022 then it makes sense. But it does feel like the company is rushing especially since the analysis of the 2021 IRP process will not be complete until September. One other member echoed these comments and stated that a demand response potential study could be beneficial. They also mentioned that when Jackpot Solar comes online, it won’t be the end of new solar projects.
The impact and effect will be broader and stronger. A tweak in programs might make sense, but the company should continue to look at things holistically.
One member asked when will Idaho Power expect to see peak load shift. Quentin answered that the shift is
already there, however it gets worse when Jackpot solar is added and then next resource after that.
One member stated they will be interested how much will be realized when the time is shifted later. Quentin said it is also a concern from Idaho Power’s perspective and that it will be harder to get
4
irrigation participation that late. Similar for commercial. It is a labor issue and controlling things is not as conducive/easy on industrial side. Also, a concern on commercial side because loads that are targeted are already off after earlier. One member stated that they have 4 sites that participate. A couple of them run 24/7 and a couple of them don't,
but in past, they were able to shut down early one day and pick up the next day. Going into September, some participants might not have significant load going into September. Right now, they nominate on a weekly basis. If they participate in June/July but not August, they can reduce their nomination, but not sure about flexibility in 5-
10 pm time frame. They would be able to participate in the first part of an event. One member stated that it is important for the company to do the analysis based on changing resources and they appreciate it.
Connie stated it is Idaho Power’s intent to continue to analyze in tandem with the 2021 IRP. Idaho Power recognized that at the early stages of the IRP that changes that would be beneficial in 2022, that's what is driving the September filing. Specific changes will be brought back to EEAG as we work through 2021 IRP.
12:25 pm-Wrap/Up Discussion.
Rosemary announced that the next meeting is August 12th, and that it has not been determined if it will be in person or virtual. Rosemary asked for comments from members on the meeting overall.
• Thanks for a good meeting.
• I appreciate everyone’s feedback and please reach out to Idaho Power if you have other thoughts or comments.
• Thank you, I enjoyed the meeting. Thanks to Chellie for highlighting one of the Simplot projects that we're proud of.
• I. would rather go to an in-person meeting. My hearing is getting questionable and it is difficult to hear everything. I appreciated the demand response presentation. I have been in some discussion with different people on this over the past several months. I think the power company will need to adjust quicker than
what a new look would allow. I endorse Idaho Power’s thought to making corrections in current program as we look at making changes in the future.
• Thanks, it was a good meeting If there's more info at the next meeting on how the company will manage
backlog especially with Weatherization Solutions and Easy Savings. Those customers have been impacted so I am interested to see how we'll reach out to them.
12:35 pm Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated 8/12/2021
Webinar
Present:
Don Strickler–Simplot Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power
Wil Gehl- City of Boise Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Taylor Thomas–Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
John Chatburn–Office of Energy & Mineral
Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power
Dainee Gibson-Webb-Idaho Conservation League-sitting in for Ben Otto
Jim Hall-WaFd Bank
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Not Present:
Evie Scrivner-Community Action Partnership Assoc.

Guests and Presenters*:
Billie McWinn*-Idaho Power Chad Severson*–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Trevor Shultz*–Idaho Power Annie Meyer-Idaho Power
Melissa Thom*–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen*–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power
Zack Thompson-Idaho Power Kathy Yi*-Idaho Power
Curtis Willis-Idaho Power
Andee Morton-Idaho Power
Brad Iverson-Long- Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kevin Keyt- Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Gabriel Neimark-Idaho Power Intern
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Erica Shiflet-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Andres Valdepena Delgado-Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Donn English- Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Terri Carlock- Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Nick Sayen- Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power
Krista West-Idaho Power
Katie Pegan-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Kieran Sprague
Peter Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power) and Zack Thompson (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
2
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
Rosemary started the meeting with EEAG member and guest introductions. There were no comments or questions
on the May notes. Quentin highlighted the meeting agenda and Theresa announced that Billie McWinn is back in the Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency department. She was working as a Regional Customer Relations Manager in the Canyon region.
9:40 a.m.-2021 System Load—Trevor Schultz
Trevor provided an overview of Idaho Power’s late June system load and the new system peak that occurred on June 30th. There were questions about the resource breakdown for the June 30th peak and the company’s comfort level of the EIM imports vs. non-firm transmission. Trevor stated that the company is more comfortable with EIM imports because of the resources available to replace that load. One member asked about current water conditions and what the hydro forecast looks like.
9:49 a.m.- Lighten the Load—Melissa Thom
Melissa provided an overview of the company’s #LightentheLoad campaign. In response to the extreme hot weather, the Corporate Communications media team reached out to customers to ask them to conserve energy through press releases, energy efficiency tips on the website, and a lighten the load specific webpage. Customers started to share how they were conserving energy via social media. Melissa asked the group if they saw any of
Idaho Power’s communications and how they participated in #lightentheload.
• I didn’t do much, but I did raise my thermostat to 73 degrees on my AC. I normally like it much cooler than that.
• I raised my thermostat to 74 degrees. I did remember hearing that lighten the load was promoted to prevent blackouts. I also thought it was good that the company explained the reasoning behind the 4pm-
9pm timeframe.
10:02 a.m.-Financials—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided an update on the Oregon and Idaho Rider balances and the year-to-date energy savings and
expenses by sector and program. There were no comments or questions from EEAG members.
10:06 a.m.- Cost-Effectiveness Quick Look—Kathy Yi
Kathy provided a brief look at cost-effectiveness for all programs but focused the discussion on the Commercial Energy-saving kits (CSK), Irrigation Efficiency Menu offering, and the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program (H&CE). There were questions and comments on items that are included in the CSK and if they incorporate items that could impact refrigeration savings. Kathy answered that the items within the kit would not impact refrigeration savings, but the company can investigate that as part of the RFP responses. One member asked what the savings breakdown is between heating and cooling. Kathy answered that the majority is heating savings as cooling savings is minimal.
10:41 a.m.-Commercial, Industrial, & Irrigation programs—-Chellie Jensen
Chellie introduced new employees Andee Morton and Curtis Willis, and summer intern Gabe Neimark. She
provided an update on program performance year-to-date and highlighted measure changes for the New Construction and Retrofit programs implemented June 15th, 2021. Updates on the commercial and industrial trainings, school cohorts, and the Integrated Design Lab trainings were provided. Chellie also covered the
Irrigation Menu changes and the company’s proposed timeline for implementation. There was no comment from EEAG members on this timeline.
3
There were questions and comments about the 50001 Ready Cohort participants and if they would be candidates for other Idaho Power offerings. Chellie stated that it is a Department of Energy program, and customers were
eligible to participate if they haven’t participated in an existing Strategic Energy Management program. It is a platform for Idaho Power to inform them what other programs they can participate in and if they achieve savings, they could earn an energy management incentive. One member asked if there were customer survey postcards provided in the Commercial Energy Saving kits that a customer could self-report installations. The Program Specialist answered that there is a survey included. The kit vendor offers a $100 monthly sweepstakes to encourage participation. One member asked if the company has been able to quantify load reduction during the most recent heat wave. Quentin answered that they have reached out to the Load Research to see if that is a possibility. It will likely be difficult to do so, but he will report back at the November meeting with any new information.
11:30 a.m.-Residential Programs—-Billie McWinn
Billie provided preliminary year-to-date energy savings by program and customer participation, she provided an update on the programs that have been impacted by COVID, the Weatherization Solutions job cost calculator, and
is seeking EEAG input on the 2022 Shade Tree events, and the new customer welcome kits.
Weatherization managers are transitioning to a new state auditing tool in October. Because Idaho Power had built
in integration with the existing auditing tool for job cost calculations the company has been working and will continue to work with Program Managers and CAPAI to develop and improve a new job cost calculator. Idaho Power will discuss calculator improvements with EEAG at the November meeting. One member asked if these
tools affect Oregon calculations or just Idaho. The Program Specialist answered that it is for both Oregon and Idaho. Energy savings will be calculated based on the whole home.
Billie provided an overview of the changes made in 2021 for tree delivery in the Shade Tree program. Trees were
mailed to customer instead of having in person events due to COVID. She is seeking EEAG input for 3 proposed delivery options for the company to pursue for 2022.
EEAG Feedback
• There seems to be more risk with having an in-person event, so I am in favor of continuing with another year of the direct mail event.
• I am in favor of the hybrid model. This will allow someone with safety concerns to still participate. The company needs to communicate that direct mail trees will be smaller to address customer satisfaction concerns. The in-person events seem to be more effective. I like giving people options.
• I also like the hybrid model. We participated in the program this year and the trees showed up on our door without notice. We were on our way out of town and the tree may have died over the weekend on our
front porch.
Billie stated that she is hearing a preference toward the hybrid model and not much appetite for in-person events only option.
The company is looking to change the contents of its Welcome Kits due to the decrease in lighting savings. She highlighted the different kit options the company is exploring with the associated costs, savings and cost-
effectiveness ratios.

4
EEAG Feedback
• No matter what modifications are made, it doesn’t appear that they will be cost-effective. The company should focus on marketing, customer satisfaction, and education while minimizing costs. It could just be a kit that contains a night light and educational materials.
• The difference in UCT is not that significant given that they are all around .30. I wouldn’t put too much weight on that parameter. I like option 4.
• I think I put preference on option 4 if the intent is education. Looking at this as a welcome kit then this is a good reminder for customers. I don’t think people should be stockpiling bulbs in their closets. Most people probably don’t install all 4 bulbs at once.
Billie informed the group of a new online marketplace that the company is exploring. This marketplace will allow customers to explore the purchase of energy efficient products and is intended to increase buyer education. Customers could also receive instant markdowns on the purchase of approved energy efficient products. She highlighted some of the features incorporated into the marketplace, such as product comparisons, buying guides, and marketing examples. At the next EEAG meeting the company will provide updates on progress with the vendor.
12:30 Lunch
1:04 Meeting Reconvened
1:04 p.m.-Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) Energy Efficiency Pilots—Chad Severson
Chad reviewed all the energy efficiency measures piloted by the ETO between 2018-2020. He discussed the fourteen pilots that Idaho Power analyzed and solicited input from EEAG on Idaho Power’s recommended path
forward.
EEAG Feedback
• Extended Capacity Heat Pumps have the potential for a lot of savings in colder heating zones but also
have installation challenges. In the next 6-12 months there should be more savings information available.
• There needs to be an educational component to the automated thermostat optimization since it is an opt-in feature. If they are going to be used for energy savings, then the company should consider making sure a customer is aware of the features and how they help save more energy.
• As commercial buildings continue to see increased electrification there may be more savings potential associated with installation of commercial smart thermostats.
• The pay for performance model has come and gone. Early on there were concerns about gaming the system due to changing household characteristics. I would advise the company to be cautious with this model.
• I would encourage Idaho Power to keep exploring and monitoring the manufactured home replacement program. It might be worth looking at the potential savings numbers associated with running a program like this, and not just cost-effectiveness.
5
• I would also encourage the company to continue to monitor a manufactured home replacement program. I recognize there is a large cost but there are great benefits. It might be worth exploring or looking into co-funding with other partners. I do recognize that it is not an easy program to implement.
1:45 p.m.-Demand Response Update—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided a brief overview of the company’s existing three demand response programs and the current program parameters. He explained the effective load carrying capacity of demand response and changes to the program design that are under consideration.
There were questions and comments from EEAG members on the proposed program changes
• Would 2 hours still be considered an “event?” Quentin stated that yes, 2 hours is still an event.
• Would the Flex Peak program change to Monday thru Saturday or stay the same? Quentin answered that it would stay the same for now, Monday-Friday.
• Has the company thought about using thermostats instead of switches for the AC Cool Credit program? Quentin answered that the company has looked and will continue to look at that option, but a significant investment has already been made in the switches and software.
• Will the company speak about other demand response offerings that it is looking at? Quentin stated that these other offerings have been discussed at the Integrated Resource Planning meetings. The focus of this
presentation is to discuss how existing programs need to change.
• Could there be some problems associated with increased marketing push with larger than expected enrollment and costs? Quentin stated that in AC Cool Credit program, marketing does drive participation and that marketing can be controlled or paused if participation numbers are too large to keep up with. In the irrigation program marketing is to all customers all at once. This was also done prior to the settlement agreement however, an installation fee was charged to the small pumps to help cover the cost and keep the program cost effective, this also influences participation. The company will be proposing an installation fee for smaller pumps.
• What is the capacity difference between automatic and manual pump participation? Quentin stated that manual pump participation is around 80MW.
• Would switches be removed from non-participating irrigation customers and be used for new participants? Quentin stated that yes, switches can be tested and reused. Typically for irrigation, switches are not removed due to lease and renting of farms, unless a customer specifically asks for it to be removed it stays.
• What is the useful life of a switch? Quentin stated that it is not really know but a number of switches are
replaced each year due to a variety of reasons. The failure rate is built into the cost of the program.
• The company should consider using the 7-11pm timeframe to target the automatic switching irrigators.
Quentin stated that the way the program is structured, those customers can choose that timeframe.

6
2:23 p.m.- Marketing—Tracey Burtch
Tracey updated EEAG on marketing efforts the company is pursuing for the commercial, industrial, and
residential programs, the Summer EE Contest, and Summer EE Guides. The Summer EE Contest ran for ten days and customers were asked how they save energy on their summertime laundry. The company received 5,000 entries with a chance to win a new energy efficient washer and dryer. The company recently launched some weather-triggered digital billboard ads that would provide energy efficient tips based on how the temperature changed outside. These messages helped maintain awareness and gave customers one simple action that they could implement right away to save energy. The company also increased marketing for the Residential New Construction program during the second and third quarter of 2021. A direct mailing was sent out to contractors that included a letter and program brochure.
2:30p.m.-Wrap-up
• I appreciated the meeting and discussion
• It was a good meeting, thanks
• I will still be participating in the demand response program with some reluctance of the 11p.m. timeframe. There are a lot of economic pressures on irrigators so there is need for irrigators to stay in or
join the program
• It was a good meeting with a full agenda. I know we are having a 5th Flex Peak event today. As we get the
proposed changes, I will work with our sites, we have 4 that participate.
• I look forward to hearing more about the new Marketplace offering
• Thank you, I enjoyed this meeting
• Thank you, I appreciated the program discussions today
2:36 p.m. Meeting Adjourned

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
Notes dated November 10, 2021
Webinar

Present:
Tina Jayaweera – Northwest Power Planning
and Conservation Council
Sidney Erwin – IIPA
Anna Kim – OPUC
Kacia Brockman – OPUC
Taylor Thomas – IPUC
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Don Strickler - Simplot
Ben Otto - ICL
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Wil Gehl – City of Boise
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Not Present:
John Chatburn Office of Energy and Mineral Resources
Evie Scrivner – CAPAI

Guests and Presenters*:
Alexa Sakolsky-Basquill – Didn’t get affiliation
Andee Morton - Idaho Power
Andrea Simmonsen - Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell –Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* – Idaho Power
Chad Ihrig – Franklin Energy
Chad Severson – Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* – Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli – Idaho Power
Chris Pollow - Idaho Power
Curtis Willis - Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz – Idaho Power
Don Reading – Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Jordan Prassinos – Idaho Power
Kathy Yi* – Idaho Power
Kevin Keyt – IPUC
Kimberly Bakalars* - Tetra Tech
Krista West - Idaho Power
Mark Bergum* - Tetra Tech
Melissa Thom - Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen - Idaho Power
Nick Sayen – OPUC
Peter Richardson – Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Rosemary Curtin - Moderator
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite - Idaho Power
Terri Carlock – IPUC
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell - Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke – Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch* - Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power

Note Takers:
Chad Severson (Idaho Power), Zack Thompson (Idaho Power), Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30 a.m. – Introduction
The facilitator, Rosemary Curtin, welcomed and introduced EEAG members and guests. There were no
questions on the August meeting notes. Quentin highlighted the meeting agenda.
9:40 a.m.-Announcements
Quentin introduced the new members of EEAG and Idaho Power or Company Energy Efficiency (EE)
teams:
• Evie Scrivner – New CAPAI CEO
• Michelle Toney – Joining Research Analysis Group
Idaho Power followed up on a question from the August meeting regarding whether Idaho Power could
quantify the impact of the Lighten the Load Campaign in summer 2021. Jordan Prassinos, Idaho Power’s
Load Research and Forecasting Manager provided information on the campaign stating there are a lot of
variables that make it difficult to get an accurate result. The demand profiles of the average residential
customer – before, in the middle, and after the heat dome – seem to indicate a demand reduction but are
unable to attribute the decline to the campaign effort. One member commented about how this is an
interesting problem to quantify and suggested if the company does the campaign again next summer, to
send out messages such as, "Last year, the campaign saved us X." The member believes this would help
increase customer participation.
9:50 a.m.-Year-To-Date Financials & Savings & Evaluation Plans – Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the current Rider balances, YTD savings, and the evaluation plans for 2022 and 2023.
Confirmed the Idaho Rider’s under-collected balance is diminishing partly because there are some fewer
expenditures due to Covid and some higher revenue due to the hot summer.
Quentin provided an overview of the Evaluation Plan for 2022. Home Energy Audits and Multifamily are
being pushed back another year. The Shade Tree calculator will update with 2022 audit information.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:

• There was a question about addressing the negative Idaho Rider balance or when it would be
addressed. Connie commented that the company would continue to monitor the Rider balance,
however there isn't a plan for a near-term adjustment. The timing and impact of rate increases
make it challenging, especially with current conditions. Ideally, the company would prefer to time
increases to the Rider with rate reductions.
• Are the savings and expenses tracking to budget? Quentin responded that in general, they are not
entirely tracking to budget. Activity hasn't kicked back up, but it's closer for Commercial and
Irrigation (C&I). Yet, the activity is down from last year as 2020 was a high year of EE savings.
He advised Chellie and Billie will go over program-specific details.
• There was a question about the Demand Response (DR) impact evaluations completion date.
Quentin responded that the evaluations are ongoing and will be done for our annual DSM report.
• One member wanted to know what 'other' evaluation is. Quentin advised they are Impact
Evaluations that are conducted internally. For example, the company does evaluation on the DR
programs each year and another example, the WAQC program, the company will use the tools
prior evaluators used and run that evaluation internally between third-party evaluations.
10:00 a.m.-NWPCC 2021 Power Plan – Tina Jayaweera
Tina Jayaweera presented the 2021 NWPCC draft Power Plan published in August. She presented that the
plan shows a paradigm shift where there is less low-cost energy efficiency.
Tina commented that the world is very different from the 2016 Power Plan, as clean energy policies affect
how EE is cost-competitive with large renewable energy builds and significant coal plant retirements. As
seen in California, the 'duck curve' is starting to move north. The study included the influence of climate
change and how that impacts generation and load. Demand response and energy efficiency will be
necessary for minimizing risks in a more dynamic market. Energy efficiency is about half of what it was.
Renewables are more cost-competitive, and low-cost EE has been accomplished, for the most part. To be
competitive, EE now needs to be $30-$40 per MWh because it's more challenging to deliver energy
efficiency measures to the residential sector. Most EE is now in C&I, where there is still lighting
available and good potential with motors. Tina presented that traditional DR is still important and is what
Idaho Power is currently doing. Also looking for DR that can be frequently deployed with little impact on
customers.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:

• There was a question about distribution voltage regulation’s (DVR) impact on industrial locations
as it seems it would be more sensitive than a home. Tina stated most customers won't notice. The
potential for industrial and agriculture is reduced because there will be impacts. She estimates
about 20% of industrial loads could be impacted by DVR.
• There was a statement about the value of energy efficiency changing and that EE needs to address
the flexibility within the grid and the narrowing ramping times. It was stated that in the past, one
cause for concern was the block of hours during summer afternoons. It was stated that Efficiency
can help address the need hours, but they are shifting. There was a question on whether there is
value in a narrower band of hours and not larger blocks? Does the plan show what EE measures
people implement in their homes? Tina commented about how load shapes support materials and
details of cost-effectiveness methodologies. She further added load shape is overlaid on pricing
and the ones that save energy have the most value during peak times. There are some
uncertainties with load shapes, as the information must be accurate. Therefore, further study
about the methodologies is needed. Practical measures are shifting to help with the 'net' loads.
Energy prices are now high at 'net' need and not in the middle of the day.
• There was a question about the measures installed five years ago, where today, an implementer
wouldn't consider those measures? What is significant now? Tina said with their increasing
knowledge, they better understand the measures that are working during high-demand hours.
There are significant differences in the value of efficiency during the summer months. In the past,
the season wasn’t as important as the region. Today, the time of day is more notable year-round.
Some measures that had no value, now have a higher value such as engine block heaters.
• Another question was if there are other examples in the plan that identify the important measures?
Tina answered there is a workbook posted that has a cost calculation per measure for value
calculations. Tina also mentioned the public comment period for the Power Plan and that
questions and comments are welcomed.

10:35 a.m.-Cost-Effectiveness View – Kathy Yi
Kathy gave an overview of cost-effectiveness by program and a detailed look at some programs requiring
attention. She's requested feedback on Commercial Saving Kits. Due to time constraints, additional
discussion regarding the Commercial Saving Kits will occur during the C&I update. Three options for
Commercial Energy Saving Kits were presented:
1. Keep as is
2. Remove items that the RTF has deactivated
3. Make one kit and deliver it as a Welcome Kit
A 4th option emerged during the conversation where a single kit was made for all customers but delivered
using the current 'by request' method.
Kathy presented the Demand Side Management (DSM) avoided cost comparison, 2021-2022 program
assumptions, residential DSM Programs, and Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation (CI&I) DSM
Programs.
Kathy provided an overview of the program’s cost and benefit value per home for 2019 Multifamily
Energy Savings and Energy House Calls programs, noting both were impacted by COVID and are a focus
for 2022. The Energy House Calls program offers free services from contractors for all-electric
manufactured homes with a furnace or heat pump. Kathy provided the costs for the program, which
include travel costs and test fees but not admin fees.
The Multifamily Energy Savings Program involves free direct installs of selected energy efficiency
measures for property owners and managers who have multifamily properties with electric water heaters.
Kathy provided an overview of the program's cost and benefit value per home for 2019 and the benefit
value per home for 2022 savings and RTF updates for both programs. She stated the company would
further discuss these programs in future EEAG meetings.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• What is causing the 2025 and 2026 increase in avoided costs for the 2017 and 2019 IRP graph
lines? Does this suggest that capacity is on day one in 2015? Kathy said the increase is caused by
the inclusion of a capacity benefit when there is a capacity deficit.
• Are there any cooling savings for Heat Pumps? Kathy acknowledged the savings for cooling but
added the season is too short, and the savings are small.
• What is the waitlist timeframe for Energy House calls and how long will it take to get through it?
Billie advised there are about 125 jobs on the waitlist, but there are also supply chain issues that
will be discussed during the residential portion of the EEAG meeting.
• I would like to see the cost of the Commercial Saving Kit – Option 3 – as compared to the current
kits. Have the Commercial ESK been evaluated? Kathy answered the kits would cost less and be
distributed to more customers. Quentin said the evaluation will come next year.
• What is the difference in delivery systems for the options, would Option 3 be sent to all new
customers, and will they be delivered differently than Option 1? Kathy stated the intent for
Option 3 is to send to all new commercial customers. Chellie added she will dive more into this
during the C&I presentation.
11:05 a.m.-5 Minute Break 11:10 a.m.-Meeting Reconvened-Residential update – Billie McWinn
Billie presented an update of year-to-date savings in comparison to last year. She said due to lighting,
savings are lower than the previous year. As of October, in-home work has resumed for many programs.
She advised while many EE programs have resumed normal operations, some are facing contractor
staffing shortages and supply chain issues.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• There was a question about residential new construction and how the program works with the
new codes and standards. Billie answered in the following year, we consider any changes after
savings are locked in.
• When did the code go into effect? Todd said decisions for the new code were made on Jan 1,
2021 and are implemented in 2022. Billie added that she will check in with the Program
Specialist, Becky, for a more detailed response. Todd advised that the software that calculates the
savings is under modification. Therefore, Becky would need to comment.
• One member asked about the Multi-Family Direct Install. Wants to know if the company has
researched common area type measures such as lighting, adding how Avista includes common
area measures in their program. Kathy answered the savings have been on measures installed in
the units themselves and haven’t included common area measures. She will follow up if we have
evaluated common areas or have offered this in the past.
Billie presented an update to the Brio Pilot, stating the focus is on ductless heat pumps (DHP). This pilot
aims to drive customer uptake of residential DHP installations by collaborating with DHP manufacturers,
distributors, and contractors to increase installations and identify DHP supply chain needs.

EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• It's great that manufacturers are helping. But there are concerns about the savings that will come
out on the other end because they may not be well-targeted applications, and many may not result
in much savings. Wants to raise caution and maybe target installations going forward after the
pilot. Billie added that DHPs are meant to test this market transformation concept (using supply
chains to move the market). The company will continue to monitor cost-effectiveness and
savings. With manufacture's cost-sharing, maybe the company can decrease costs enough for
participants to gain higher interest.
Billie presented updates for EE Programs. She noted, as suggested at a previous meeting, the company is
using a hybrid method for the Shade Tree Program. The company believes 500 trees is a manageable
amount to test spacing out pick-ups, and should there be a need to cancel events, the company will have
the ability to look at alternatives for those trees. Plus, getting larger trees should lead to earlier energy
savings and higher customer satisfaction.
Billie provided new measures being considered for Heating and Cooling Efficiency. The company is
exploring additional program measures due to program changes over the last year. The company strives to
continually assess programs to ensure customers are provided with the best options.
A follow up from the last meeting about Welcome Kit options – increased cost configurations for 2022.
The company can get higher lumen bulbs, resulting in higher savings. Billie also noted the consideration
of 2 LED nightlights.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• What are the assumptions of what an 1100 lumen bulb will be replacing? I also like option 2. My
initial gut reaction is that people like bright lights. Denise and a member both commented, 1100
lumen is 75-watt equivalent.
• I like option 2 as well.
• Another member added Option 2 (brighter bulbs) is more likely to be used. Maybe there isn’t a
need for 4 bulbs, as 2 or 3 would be good.
• I don’t remember the details but how many 60-watt equivalents are in a person's house vs. 75-
watt? I think there might be more 60-watt. Option 2 and 3 - it's probable that the 1100 lumen
bulbs are replacing the 60-watt. If there are both bulbs, people are more likely to use them in the
wrong locations. Gather a little more into what’s known about households and validate the need
for higher lumen bulbs.
• I tend to agree with the others regarding more of the high lumen bulbs (Option 2). Option 3 might
be worthwhile but offer education on where to put the bulbs.
• One member was surprised to see the cost of the nightlight kit at $14. Denise offered that a large
part of the costs is shipping and putting together the kit and the cost of shipping is the same
($7.25) no matter which kit is sent.
Billie presented an update on Idaho WAQC funding and solicited feedback on ideas for spending the
growing carry-over balance. In recent years, the agencies haven’t been able to spend the funds
allocated for weatherization and the impacts from COVID resulted in a large amount of unspent funds
accumulated in 2020 and 2021. The company presented several possible ideas for consideration,
including replace older HVACs with heat pump or looking for ways to give back some funds to
customers through a one-time transfer to the Idaho Rider, the PCA, or possibly other low-income
channels.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• When was WAQC program restarted? Billie answered in June 2020.
• I don’t like the idea of a give-back mechanism as the weatherization need is too big. I agree heat
pump installations have merits. In Montana, the approximate cost was the same for a one-time
fund that was for home repair costs, but some simply couldn’t be weatherized because of the use
of federal money. An option could be to use these funds for home repairs such as fixing a hole in
a roof then weatherizing the home.
• Offer one-time funding for special projects. The Idaho Commission approved a similar program
with Avista, so this could be an option.
• I don’t like the idea of reducing the balance by giving back the amount. I like the idea of major
projects on homes and old projects for heat pumps. I would like to discuss the waitlist and energy
assistance for those with electric resistance heat and other opportunities for creative ideas.
• I’m curious to know what this is looking like regionally, across our CAP agencies. Idaho Power
answered some typically spend all, some have a tough time, but the last two years have been
difficult for most agencies.
• There seems to be an increase in funding for state weatherization’s but it’s coming out of the
infrastructure bill. The ability to get workers out to homes can be difficult. How can the
throughput be increased? The need is there, the money is available, but need to close the gap and
get the work done. Suggest we take some time to figure out how to get more homes weatherized
with additional funds likely pending.

12:30 p.m.-30-Minute Lunch Break 1:00 p.m.-Meeting Reconvened with C&I&I Program update – Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented program savings and participation updates on the current year vs. previous years,
focusing on new construction where the savings were nearly doubled. She explains this is due to
payments coming through for several large projects.
Chellie went over the increased lighting incentives and stated that the company is ahead of where it was
last year. Project submittals are down, and summer numbers are lower than 2020. The company is hopeful
that incentive increases will help fill the pipeline.
Chellie presented an update on the outreach strategy for the Small Business Direct Install Program. She
advised invoices for April-June haven’t been processed, so those projects are not reflected in the data and
discussed COVID impacts. The Eastern Region is completed, and the SBDI started outreach in the
Southern Region.
For Custom Projects, Chellie stated the company had more projects and more savings at this time last
year. However, the future project list looks good, and the pipeline is healthy.
Chellie went into further detail about Commercial Savings Kits, presented in the Cost-Effectiveness
presentation. She said the company is on track to meet targets and get bids for kits from other vendors.
Idaho Power is searching for ways to reduce the cost and look at simplifying the kits. There is a gap in
service with supply chain issues and/or a new contract with a new vendor. Chellie also noted the kits
program was before Small Business Direct Install, and there will be an evaluation next year. The options
for ESKs – Option 1 – No change, savings are based on survey results which may not be reliable. Option
2 – Modify kit, savings assumptions are locked for 2022. Attempt to improve the cost-effectiveness by
removing items that do not provide much benefit or that have been removed from RTF. Option 3 –
Simplify kit, to one kit configuration to encourage participation in other programs. The purpose is to
target small businesses. Therefore, SBDI would be a better program and will have a report of customers
who have already received a kit.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• How long are the contracts for this program? Can the program be changed in the middle of a
contract if they aren’t modified? Chellie answered contracts generally are multi-year and can be
canceled or changed.
• Option 3 looks like a separate program and seems to have a lot of different savings regarding
installation percentages. The evaluation of Option 3 demonstrates a loss of validity.
• Option 3 does appear to be a different program. Option 1 doesn't seem to be an option. Spray
valves are standard (non-measure). Power strips don't show savings as well.
• Keeping these measures is a waste because there are minimal savings. I have no opinion on 2nd
exit sign LEDs. I like Option 3, but it is a different program and that is too much change for the
evaluation.
• Chellie added that Option 3 doesn't necessarily have to be a Welcome Kit type of program where
we send to everyone. She suggested it could be just one kit, available upon request.
• One member said that Option 3 sounds good considering the evaluation issues are resolved.
• Three other members commented they also liked Option 3.
• What are the measures that are being taken out? If a spray valve is old, can that be replaced? A
member explained retrofits vs. replacement when broken. The replacements would get efficient
units.
• Maybe SBDI could do retrofits of these measures? A member said these are kits. It isn’t known
what was in there before.
• Chellie proposed a new option, Option 4 - simplifying kits to a single kit like Option 3 but
keeping the current delivery mechanism. Many members liked the idea.
• Let the evaluation guide between options 2 and 4. If it’s Option 4, let’s keep track of where the
kits are going (restaurant, retail, office) instead of creating new kits.
• I think it would be great if it can go to existing folks but also for new contacts. Maybe those can
be measured differently. Maybe the kit can be for anyone.
Chellie presented updates for the Energy Management Programs along with the development and
progress. She shared the Find and Fix offering and the development of the Commercial Assessment Tool,
which is a one-stop-shop offering. The idea is that we can visit the site, perform the updates right there,
and quickly identify the immediate savings. Chellie added the company is incorporating a standard
method for quantifying energy savings associated with air leak identification and repairing compressed air
leaks.
The company had an opportunity to recruit customers to participate in a new Technical Assistance
Program sponsored by DOE to further the adoption of 50001Ready with industrial customers. The
program will offer free support to organizations who commit to developing an energy management
system. The program supports efforts to gather data and insights to better understand the drivers,
challenges, opportunities, and successful strategies to advance improved energy management throughout
the US economy. They started a 5-member cohort in May/June and we were able to encourage 2 Idaho
Power customers to participate plus we Langley Gulch, our combined cycle plant, is participating. DOE
approved a second cohort to start in the fall and out of 6 potential Idaho Power customers that were
initially interested, we had one customer sign up. For a total of 4 Idaho representatives in the 2 cohorts.
Chellie introduced a potential new cohort for industrial wastewater customers. This cohort will be
focusing on the technical opportunities to give operators the skills that they can use right away and will
have webinars, treasure hunts and trainings, much like our other program designs. For most industrials the
focus is typically on the product. Wastewater part of the plant is backburner and not a lot of time is spent
optimizing them. Chellie shared that we are optimistic that this cohort will have success with savings if
we can have a successful recruitment.
EEAG Questions and Feedback:
• For sustained cohorts: are they steady, or are there improvements? Is there tracking? Chellie said
the company had taught them and transitioned them to be sustaining on their own. It is up to them
to continue the models and are not being tracked or incentivized for savings. We will support
them if they have an issue with the model or need re-baselining. We will invite them to future
workshops for additional learning and sharing their experiences.
• Regarding the industrial wastewater cohort: I think this is a good idea. Reliability is key. There
are energy savings, and people are interested but may not be the most efficient due to reliability.
There are also concerns regarding confidentiality and the need to overcome that in a cohort.
• One member said their organization is a big fan of any program that saves energy and cleans up
wastewater. It appears to be a good program. He appreciates the comments regarding
confidentiality and competition. Chellie mentioned there might be fewer individuals sharing out
in workshops to account for the confidentiality.
• Another member mentioned that he understands the Irrigation Peak Rewards program will need
to change. Suggested to keep in mind that most participants are happy with the Peak Rewards
DR.
1:55 p.m.-5-minute break 2:00 p.m.- Meeting Reconvened with Evaluation Presentation – Tetra Tech
Kimberly Bakalars and Mark Bergum from Tetra Tech organized a presentation on the evaluations,
methods, results, and recommendations for the 2020 program year for Irrigation Peak Rewards and Small
Business Direct Install Programs.
There was a comment from a member about how he uses these incentives and can provide some
perspective. The Menu Incentive works for customers with pivots who regularly upgrade sprinklers and
pressure regulators. Some incentives encourage the proper use of equipment. However, the incentive must
be high enough to ensure the customer will do the work. Custom incentives are generally long-term
matters and long-term energy savings.
2:45 p.m.-Marketing Update - Tracey Burtch
Tracey presented a company marketing effort update. She shared a KTVB spotlight (commercial) for
residential, the fall contest, and some educational bill inserts and emails. For C&I, she gave updates about
the Energy@work newsletter than a video on the new building for the Swan Falls High School. One
member stated he likes the Swan Falls video and the inclusion of features that save energy. It gave
specific measures on the incentives customers can potentially receive and ways to save energy.
3:00 p.m.-Discussion-Wrap-up – Rosemary Curtin
• Thanks! Great materials and presentations. A lot of information was covered well. I appreciate
that. What's on my mind is the big burst of federal money coming into energy efficiency and
seeing what can be done with that.
• Good job emphasizing the areas you're seeking feedback. I think a lot is going on with EE and
more to come.
• Don't have anything to add right now. I appreciate the chance for the commission’s staff to sit in.
• Thank you for the opportunity.
• Thank you for the discussion. Lots of information and dedication to cost-effective EE. I'll see
what I can do at my house to do my part.
• Thank you for the opportunity for me to present NWPCC the plan. I liked having the opportunity
to share and how the points of feedback were called out.
• Don't have anything else to add. I appreciate Tina's presentation.
• Thought the presentations had a lot of good information. I learned things I didn’t know. I liked
the call-out for feedback.
• Michelle Toney will be reaching out regarding the dates for the 2022 meetings. Looking at the
same cadence of February, May, August, and November.

3:15 p.m.-Meeting Adjourned
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 33
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager
2015 Washington State Energy Code Energy Savings
Analysis—Commercial Provisions
Commercial Mike D Kennedy NEEA
2018 Washington Residential Code Energy Savings Analysis Residential Ecotope NEEA
2020 BOC Dataset Analysis Commercial, Industrial BrightLine Group NEEA
2020 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Incremental
Cost Study
Commercial, Industrial Energy Solutions NEEA
2020 Residential Lighting Market Analysis Residential Apex Analytics. DNV NEEA
2025 Strategic Planning Briefing Paper: Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion Trends
Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
2025 Strategic Planning Briefing Paper: Market
Transformation Trends
Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
2025 Strategic Planning Briefing Paper: National Trends Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
2025 Strategic Planning Briefing Paper: Northwest
Regional Trends
Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
ASHRAE 100 Users’ Guide Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
RDH Building Science NEEA
Building Commissioning 2020 Long-Term Monitoring and
Tracking Report
Commercial, Industrial The Cadmus Group NEEA
Combi System Field Study Residential Energy 350 NEEA
Commercial & Industrial Stand-Alone Fans Market Research Commercial, Industrial DNV NEEA
Commercial and Industrial Pumps Standard Evaluation Commercial, Industrial TRC Companies NEEA
Commercial Code Enhancement Market Progress
Evaluation #1
Commercial Energy& Resource
Solutions
NEEA
Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Standard Evaluation Commercial, Industrial TRC Engineers NEEA
Commercial Secondary Window Program Development
Research
Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA
COVID-19’s Impact on Energy Use: The Northwest End Use
Load Research Project
Residential NEEA NEEA
Drive Power Initiative—2020 Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Report Commercial, Industrial Cadmus NEEA
Ductless Heat Pumps 2020 Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Report Residential Johnson Consulting Group
NEEA
EXP07 Value Engineering Memo and PowerPoint Residential Underwriters Laboratory
NEEA
Extended Motor Products Pump and Circulator Baseline Assumptions Review Commercial, Industrial Apex Analytics NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heater ACE Model Review Residential Ecotope, Larson Energy Research
NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heater Qualified Products List Residential NEEA NEEA
Home Builders Market Research Report Residential Cadmus NEEA
Investigation of Airtightness and Ventilation Interactions in New Multifamily Buildings—Phase II Residential Ecotope NEEA
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 34 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager
Investigation of Airtightness and Ventilation Interactions in
New Multifamily Buildings—Phase III
Residential Ecotope NEEA
Laboratory Assessment of Rheem Generation 5 Series Heat
Pump Water Heaters
Residential Larson Energy
Research
NEEA
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls—Market Progress
Evaluation Report #1
Commercial, Industrial Cadmus Group,
Michael Mutmansky,
TRC Companies
NEEA
Manufactured Homes Market Progress Evaluation #1 Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Maximizing Mini-Split Performance Report Residential Sustainabilist,
Resilient Edge, Bruce
Harley Consulting,
Ridgeline Energy
Analytics
NEEA
NEEA 2022 Operations Plan Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA External Power Supply Standard Evaluation:
Final Report
Commercial, Industrial TRC Companies NEEA
NEEA Q1 2021 Codes, Standards and New
Construction Newsletter
Residential, Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q1 2021 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q1 2021 Quarterly Report Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q2 2021 Codes, Standards and New
Construction Newsletter
Residential, Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q2 2021 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q2 2021 Quarterly Report Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q3 2021 Codes and Standards Newsletter Residential, Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q3 2021 Quarterly Report Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2020 Codes, Standards and New
Construction Newsletter
Residential, Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2020 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential, Commercial, Industrial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2020 Quarterly Report Residential, Commercial, Industrial
NEEA NEEA
Next Step Homes Pilot Phases 2 and 3 Summary Residential CLEAResult NEEA
Non-Powered Damper Gas Storage Water Heater Lab Testing Commercial, Industrial GTI NEEA
Northwest Smart Thermostat Research Study Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Oregon Residential Specialty Code: 2005 Baseline and Code Roadmap to Achieve the 2030 Goal Residential Ecotope NEEA
Q1 2021 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential, Commercial, Industrial
NEEA NEEA
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 35
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager
Q2 2021 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
Q3 2021 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
Q3 2021 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
Q4 2021 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
NEEA NEEA
RBSA 2022 Introductory Webinar Slides Residential NEEA NEEA
RBSA 2022 Webinar #2 Slides Residential NEEA NEEA
RBSA 2022 Webinar #3 Slides Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA
Retail Product Portfolio Market Progress
Evaluation Report #1
Residential Cadeo Group NEEA
Televisions Planning Assumptions Review Residential Cadeo Group NEEA
The Northwest End-Use Load Research (EULR) Project Residential Association of Energy
Engineers
NEEA
Variable Refrigerant Flow ASRAC Working Group Evaluation Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
TRC Engineers NEEA
Variable Speed Heat Pump Smart Thermostat Findings Residential Energy 350 NEEA
Titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports. A PDF of this supplement can be found at
idahopower.com/ways-to-save/energy-efficiency-program-reports/.

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 37
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2021 Task 1: Foundational Services Summary of Projects Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2021 Task 2: Lunch and Learn Summary of Effort and
Outcomes Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and Education
2021 Task 3: BSUG Summary of Effort and Outcomes Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and Education
2021 Task 4: New Construction Verifications
Summary of Projects
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Verifications
2021 Task 5: Energy Resource Library Summary of
Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2021 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

Report Number: 2021_001-01

2020 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2021

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Damon Woods

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Author:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2021). 2021
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(2021_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
3. Appendix – Project Reports .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
IR Infrared
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2020 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical design
assistance in 2021 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 shown in Figure 1
outlines the three phases. 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
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2020 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-01)

2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The IDL worked on at least 16 Foundational Service projects in 2021. These
included some direct trainings with local firms on daylighting and energy modeling.
Projects involved multiple community and non-profit centers throughout Idaho Power
Service Territory. The technical assistance provided in 2021 was more involved and
focused than in year’s past.
Projects consisted of email responses, personal trainings, technical reports, and
memos. In total, there were nine Phase I projects,three Phase II projects, and two
Phase III projects. Two other projects are underway and have yet to be fully scoped.
The full list of projects is shown in Table 1 below.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2020 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-01)

Table 1: Summary of Technical Assistance Projects for 2021

Type Phase Status Notes
/
w Ft2 Location

Report Number: 2021_002-01

2021 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2021

Idaho Power Company
Dylan Agnes

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

Damon Woods

Dylan Agnes

Idaho Power Company
IPC KIT #
Agnes, D.,(2021). 2021 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2021_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. 2021 Summary and Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................ 9
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Session 1: High Efficiency Heat Recovery (03/18/2021) .............................................. 14
2.2 Session 2: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Buildings (03/31/2021) .... 14
2.3 Session 3: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (04/12/2021) ................ 15
2.4 Session 4: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (04/21/2021) ........... 16
2.5 Session 5: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Modeling (04/28/2021) ........... 16
2.6 Session 6: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Modeling (05/6/2021) ............. 17
2.7 Session 7: OpenStudio Parametric Analysis Tool (05/12/2021) .................................. 17
2.8 Session 8: High Performance Classrooms ( 05/18/2021) ............................................ 18
2.9 Session 9: LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits (05/27/2021) .............................................. 18
2.10 Session 10: ASHRAE 209 Energy Simulation Aided Design (06/15/2021) ............... 19
2.11 Session 11: ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC
Systems (06/24/2021) ........................................................................................................... 19
2.12 Session 12: High Efficiency Heat Recovery (09/21/2021) ......................................... 20
2.13 Session 13: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(10/26/2021) .......................................................................................................................... 20
2.14 Session 14: Luminarie Level Lighting Controls (11/21/2021) ................................... 21
3. Future Work.............................................................................................................................. 23
4. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1 Session 1: High Efficiency Heat Recovery (03/18/2021) ....................................... 24
4.1.2 Session 2: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Buildings (03/31/2021)
............................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.3 Session 3: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (04/12/2021) ......... 26
4.1.4 Session 4: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (08/12/2021) .... 27
4.1.5 Session 5: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(04/28/2021) ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.6 Session 6: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(05/6/2021) ......................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.7 Session 7: OpenStudio Parametric Analysis Tool (05/12/2021) ........................... 29
4.1.8 Session 8: High Performance Classrooms (05/18/2021) ...................................... 30

vii

4.1.9 Session 9: LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits (05/27/2021) ...................................... 31
4.1.10 Session 10: ASHRAE 209 Energy Simulation Aided Design (06/15/2021) ........ 32
4.1.11 Session 11: ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC
Systems (06/24/2021) ....................................................................................................... 33
4.1.12 Session 12: High Efficiency Heat Recovery (09/21/2021) .................................. 34
4.1.13 Session 13: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(10/26/2021) ...................................................................................................................... 34
4.1.14 Session 14: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (11/21/2021) ........................... 35

viii

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
PoE Power over Ethernet
TBD To Be Determined
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council

9

1. 2021 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2021 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 3/18 High Efficiency Heat Recovery Damon Woods Open Webinar 11
2 3/31 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Building Ken Baker Open Webinar 17
3 4/12 Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Dylan Agnes Open Webinar 12
4 4/21 Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration Damon Woods Open Webinar 5
5 4/28 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Ken Baker Open Webinar 7
6 5/6 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Ken Baker Open Webinar 5
7 5/12 OpenStudio Parametric Analysis Tool Dylan Agnes Open Webinar 8
8 5/18 High Performance Classrooms Damon Woods Open Webinar 5
9 5/27 LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits Dylan Agnes Open Webinar 6
10 6/15 ASHRAE 209 Energy Simulation Aided Design Damon Woods Open Webinar 1
11 6/24 ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operations for HVAC Systems Damon Woods Open Webinar 15
12 9/21 High Efficiency Heat Recovery Damon Woods Open Webinar 9
13 10/26 The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Dylan Agnes Open Webinar 3
14 11/21 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Dylan Agnes Open Webinar 0
15 - - - - -
16 - - - - -
17 - - - - -
18 - - - - -
19 - - - - -
20 - - - - -
Total Attendees 104

10

Table 1 on the previous page summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2021. The statistics in this
section are cumulative for the 14 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.

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

11

12

11
17
12
5
7
8
5
6
1
15
0
9
5 3
0 5 10 15 20 25
High Efficiency Heat Recovery
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings
Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
The Architect's business case for energy performance modeling
OpenStudio Parametric Analysis Tool
High Performance Classrooms
LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits
ASHRAE 209 Energy Simulation Aided Design
ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC Systems
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

13

4.19 4.46 4.41 4.47 4.76 4.52
3.10
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
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:
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
High Efficiency Heat
Recovery
Indoor Air Quality
(IAQ) & Energy
Efficiency in
Builldings
Daylight in Buildings:
Getting the Details
Right
Dedicated Outdoor
Air Systems (DOAS)
Integration
The Architect's
business case for
energy performance
modeling
The Architect's
business case for
energy performance
modeling
OpenStudio
Parametric Analysis
Tool
High Performance
Classrooms
LEED V4.1
Daylighting Credits
ASHRAE 209 Energy
Simulation Aided
Design
ASHRAE 36 High
Performance
Sequences of
Operation for HVACSystems
High Efficiency Heat
Recovery
The Architect's
business case for
energy performance
modeling
Luminaire Level
Lighting Controls
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 via Zoom in
the form of poll to each participant. The Zoom platform only allows for multiple choice
responses in their polling feature which limited our typical evaluation data collection. The
feedback will be used to improve future sessions. The feedback received from participants
is generally constructive criticism used to keep sessions updated but also to propose future
potential topics and questions to the Integrated Design Lab.
2.1 SESSION 1: HIGH EFFICIENCY HEAT RECOVERY (03/18/2021)
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:

2.2 SESSION 2: INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ) & ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS (03/31/2021)
Title: Indoor Air Quality System (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Buildings

15

In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing
building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the
following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and
building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.3 SESSION 3: DAYLIGHT IN BUILDINGS – GETTING THE DETAILS RIGHT (04/12/2021)
Title: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right
: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and
comfortable day-lit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed to
appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that can make
or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details, ranging from interior
surface colors and reflectance, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing
specifications), and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to
ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

16

2.4 SESSION 4: DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS (DOAS) INTEGRATION (04/21/2021)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
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:

2.5 SESSION 5: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (04/28/2021)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy 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:

17

2.6 SESSION 6: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY MODELING (05/6/2021)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy 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:

2.7 SESSION 7: OPENSTUDIO PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS TOOL (05/12/2021)
Title: OpenStudio Parametric Analysis Tool
This session will cover the parametric analysis tool (PAT) within OpenStudio. PAT removes the
need to hand edit each model to try out different architectural design, energy efficiency measures, or
mechanical systems. Participants will learn the fundamental concepts of measure writing for OpenStudio,
simulation parameters, running a simulation with PAT, and how firms can utilize this feature to inform early
design decisions in regards to building performance.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

18

2.8 SESSION 8: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS ( 05/18/2021)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom
environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.9 SESSION 9: LEED V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS (05/27/2021)
Title: LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits
LEED Daylighting credits are one of the most difficult to achieve and requires an early investment
for validation. However, investigating daylight opportunities for a project will assist in other aspects of energy
efficiency, such as, estimating heating and cooling loads or integrating a building’s control systems. As such,
any time spent in the early design phase investigating if a project should invest in daylighting is applicable to
facets of energy efficient design that is often required for LEED projects. In this lecture we will discuss the
changes from LEED V4 to V4.1 Daylighting Credits, which options work best for project types, incorporating
early energy/simulation modeling into the design process, and how to run a cost-benefit analysis to determine
if you should invest in daylighting.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

19

2.10 SESSION 10: ASHRAE 209 ENERGY SIMULATION AIDED DESIGN (06/15/2021)
Title: ASHRAE 209 Energy Simulation Aided Design
Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will
cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets.
Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether
trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line
for both designers and clients.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.11 SESSION 11: ASHRAE 36 HIGH PERFORMANCE SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC
SYSTEMS (06/24/2021)
Title: ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC Systems
The best equipment can still run terribly if it’s not controlled well – like a sports car in the hands
of a clueless driver. Don’t let that happen to your design. Get the latest guidelines on sequences of operation
for common HVAC sequences. Take advantage of Idaho Power’s incentives on HVAC energy management
controls. Get a refresher proper start-up and shut down sequences for air handling units including VAVs,
rooftop units, and heat pumps. Ensure that controls are in compliance with indoor air quality standards for
ASHRAE 62.1 compliance and COVID mitigation. Participants will learn functional tests they can perform that
can confirm that proper sequences are in place.
Presentation Info:

20

Attendance:

2.12 SESSION 12: HIGH EFFICIENCY HEAT RECOVERY (09/21/2021)
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:

2.13 SESSION 13: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(10/26/2021)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling

21

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:

2.14 SESSION 14: LUMINARIE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (11/21/2021)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
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
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. 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. Some LLLCs can be
connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually through manufacturer’s software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify
trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the building schedules
for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule programming.

Presentation Info:

22

Attendance:

23

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 61 Lunch and Learn evaluations received
throughout 2021. The comments from these were valuable but were limited in the type of
response that could be given. We saw a significant increase in attendance of virtual Lunch
and Learns in 2020, however, in 2021 we observed a significant decrease in attendance.
For more details please refer to the summary and cumulative analysis table. This drop in
attendance can be attributed virtual training fatigue. Most of our audience are not attending
virtual lectures unless required to meet a specific licensing requirement. The open lectures
in virtual format means that the same topic is delivered to all A&E firms at once, and
with a limited number of topics, attendees quickly cycle through the topics they are
interested in. Visiting individual firms in person encourages participant engagement and
material can be tailored to a firm's specific interests.

24

4. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session, an evaluation poll via Zoom was presented to each
participant. The feedback was used to improve future sessions. Below are summaries of session information,
attendance counts, and the feedback received from the evaluation forms. It should be noted that comments
recorded from evaluations were not collected due to limitations with the ZOOM platform which only allows for
multiple choice polling to participants.
4.1.1 SESSION 1: HIGH EFFICIENCY HEAT RECOVERY (03/18/2021)
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

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.1 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.2 SESSION 2: INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ) & ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS (03/31/2021)
Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Buildings
In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing
building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the
following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and
building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ

Date: 03/31/21

Location: Open Webinar – Boise, ID
Presenter: Ken Baker

Architect: 6 Electrician:

Engineer: 6 Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other*: 5
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (Online): 17

26

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected due to technical difficulties Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Comments: No comments were made on the evaluations collected.

4.1.3 SESSION 3: DAYLIGHT IN BUILDINGS – GETTING THE DETAILS RIGHT (04/12/2021)
Title: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right
: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and
comfortable day-lit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed to
appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that can make
or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details, ranging from interior
surface colors and reflectance, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing
specifications), and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to
ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

27

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected for this webinar. Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 3.9 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 3.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 3.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 3.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 2.6 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.4 SESSION 4: DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS (DOAS) INTEGRATION (08/12/2021)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
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:

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

28

Comments: No comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.5 SESSION 5: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(04/28/2021)
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:

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 3.8 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

29

Comments:comments were made on the evaluations collected.

4.1.6 SESSION 6: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(05/6/2021)
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:

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 3.8 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

Comments: comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.7 SESSION 7: OPENSTUDIO PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS TOOL (05/12/2021)
Title: OpenStudio Parametric Analysis Tool
This session will cover the parametric analysis tool (PAT) within OpenStudio. PAT removes the need to hand edit each model to try out different architectural design, energy efficiency measures, or

30

mechanical systems. Participants will learn the fundamental concepts of measure writing for OpenStudio, simulation parameters, running a simulation with PAT, and how firms can utilize this feature to inform early
design decisions in regards to building performance.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.8 SESSION 8: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (05/18/2021)
Title: High Performance Classrooms
Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the next ten
years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to meet this demand. This
session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment. A quick look at the state of the last 50 years of school design will give an introduction to the
problems faced by designers. This session will highlight several case studies of high performance schools in
the Northwest to address daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.

Presentation Info:

31

Attendance:

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.9 SESSION 9: LEED V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS (05/27/2021)
Title: LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits
LEED Daylighting credits are one of the most difficult to achieve and requires an early investment
for validation. However, investigating daylight opportunities for a project will assist in other aspects of energy
efficiency, such as, estimating heating and cooling loads or integrating a building’s control systems. As such, any time spent in the early design phase investigating if a project should invest in daylighting is applicable to
facets of energy efficient design that is often required for LEED projects. In this lecture we will discuss the
changes from LEED V4 to V4.1 Daylighting Credits, which options work best for project types, incorporating early energy/simulation modeling into the design process, and how to run a cost-benefit analysis to determine
if you should invest in daylighting.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

32

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
4.1.10 SESSION 10: ASHRAE 209 ENERGY SIMULATION AIDED DESIGN (06/15/2021)
Title: ASHRAE 209 Energy Simulation Aided Design
Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture will
cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive energy savings targets. Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the design process. Quantify the energy impact
of design decisions in real time. And, use post-occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether
trying to achieve LEED, tax credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line for both designers and clients.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent

33

1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.11 SESSION 11: ASHRAE 36 HIGH PERFORMANCE SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC
SYSTEMS (06/24/2021)
Title: ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC Systems
The best equipment can still run terribly if it’s not controlled well – like a sports car in the hands
of a clueless driver. Don’t let that happen to your design. Get the latest guidelines on sequences of operation
for common HVAC sequences. Take advantage of Idaho Power’s incentives on HVAC energy management
controls. Get a refresher proper start-up and shut down sequences for air handling units including VAVs,
rooftop units, and heat pumps. Ensure that controls are in compliance with indoor air quality standards for
ASHRAE 62.1 compliance and COVID mitigation. Participants will learn functional tests they can perform that
can confirm that proper sequences are in place.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:comments were made on the evaluations collected.

34

4.1.12 SESSION 12: HIGH EFFICIENCY HEAT RECOVERY (09/21/2021)
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:

Evaluations: No evaluation were handed out

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments:comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.13 SESSION 13: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(10/26/2021)
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-

35

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:

Evaluations: No evaluations were handed out

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: comments were made on the evaluations collected.
4.1.14 SESSION 14: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (11/21/2021)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
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
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. 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. Some LLLCs can be
connected by gateway to transfer information collected. This data is analyzed, usually through manufacturer’s
software, to provide a user interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify
trends in occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the building schedules
for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule programming.

Presentation Info:

36

Attendance:

Evaluations:

Scale

1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: comments were made on the evaluations collected.

37

APPENDIX B: LUNCH AND LEARN 2021 TOPICS OFFERED
HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (TOPIC 2001)
Student enrollment in Ada County is projected to grow by 1,000 students per year for the
next ten years and at least six capital projects are planned in the West Ada District alone to
meet this demand. This session will cover a variety of issues facing the design of an
efficient, healthy, and productive classroom environment. A quick look at the state over the
last 50 years of school design will introduce the problems faced by designers. This session
will highlight several case studies of high-performance schools in the Northwest to address
daylighting, natural ventilation, and integration of mechanical systems. Each passive
strategy will be addressed in detail with regional examples and performance research.
This session will cover the parametric analysis tool (PAT) within OpenStudio. PAT removes
the need to hand edit each model to try out different architectural design, energy efficiency
measures, or mechanical systems. Participants will learn the fundamental concepts of
measure writing for OpenStudio, simulation parameters, running a simulation with PAT, and
how firms can utilize this feature to inform early design decisions in regards to building
performance.
This session will cover the role that daylighting multipliers play when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylight harvesting in a building through design applications, such as, light
shelves, manufactured glazing, and material specification. Participants will learn about the
rate of return and energy efficiency cost effectiveness for daylighting strategies, building
form, location, and multipliers. The class will explain how the layers of daylighting/electric
lighting strategies and control systems and how they add or subtract to the overall efficiency
of the design.
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.

38

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.

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.
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 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. 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. Some LLLCs can be connected by gateway to transfer information
collected. This data is analyzed, usually through manufacturer’s software, to provide a user
interface different from a typical text editor. From there users are able to identify trends in
occupancy and lighting energy consumption that can then be used to refine the building
schedules for occupancy and lighting and, if applicable, for the buildings’ HVAC schedule
programming.

39

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.

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.

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.

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.

How to incorporate chilled beams into building design: the costs, the energy savings, and the
impacts on the architectural program and HVAC system.

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

40

LEED V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS (TOPIC 2101)
LEED Daylighting credits are one of the most difficult to achieve and requires an early
investment for validation. However, investigating daylight opportunities for a project will
assist in other aspects of energy efficiency, such as, estimating heating and cooling loads or
integrating a building’s control systems. As such, any time spent in the early design phase
investigating if a project should invest in daylighting is applicable to facets of energy efficient
design that is often required for LEED projects. In this lecture we will discuss the changes
from LEED V4 to V4.1 Daylighting Credits, which options work best for project types,
incorporating early energy/simulation modeling into the design process, and how to run a
cost-benefit analysis to determine if you should invest in daylighting.
ASHRAE STANDARD 209 – ENERGY SIMULATION-AIDED DESIGN (TOPIC 2102)
Learn about ASHRAE’s recommendations for energy simulation aided design. This lecture
will cover methods of integrating modeling into the design process to meet aggressive
energy savings targets. Learn how to implement load-reducing modeling cycles early in the
design process. Quantify the energy impact of design decisions in real time. And, use post-
occupancy modeling to enhance building performance. Whether trying to achieve LEED, tax
credits, or efficiency incentives, energy modeling can help improve the bottom line for both
designers and clients.
The best equipment can still run terribly if it’s not controlled well – like a sports car in the
hands of a clueless driver. Don’t let that happen to your design. Get the latest guidelines on
sequences of operation for common HVAC sequences. Take advantage of Idaho Power’s
incentives on HVAC energy management controls. Get a refresher proper start-up and shut
down sequences for air handling units including VAVs, rooftop units, and heat pumps.
Ensure that controls are in compliance with indoor air quality standards for ASHRAE 62.1
compliance and COVID mitigation. Participants will learn functional tests they can perform
that can confirm that proper sequences are in place.

Report Number: 2021_003-01

2021 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2021

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 Street, Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Author:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT #V2021224

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2021). 2021 TASK 3:
BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (2021_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
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. 2021 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
2021 Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 4
2021 Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
Session 1: How high can you go – Simulation study on high temperature cooling for radiant
systems (3/24/21) ....................................................................................................................... 6
Session 2: Building energy and systems analysis with Autodesk Revit and Insight (04/28/21) . 6
Session 3: Weather normalization and climate design tools (05/19/21) ................................... 7
Session 4: Automated 2D heat transfer using grasshopper (08/25/21) ..................................... 8
Session 5: Designing for PoE lighting and automation (09/22/21) ............................................. 9
Session 6: Indoor Air Quality during lockdown – towards a new health integrated modeling
framework (10/20/21) ................................................................................................................ 9
5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 11
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 11
7. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A: BSUG 2021 Evaluations ......................................................................................... 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 2021 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 on the IDL website which can be found here: (http://www.idlboise.com/content/bsug-20).
3. 2021 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2021, 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
3/24 Carlos Duarte CBE - 54 - 21
4/28 Ian Molloy Autodesk - 63 - 33
10/27 Elizabeth Cooper UCL - 57 - 28
- 336 - 154
336 154
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2021 Attendance

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 21 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 35 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 16 Other: 82
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 0
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online): Total (Combined):
21
37
27
32
13
28
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
How High Can You Go - Simulation study on high-
temperature cooling for radiant systems
Building Energy and Systems Analysis with Autodesk Revitand Insight
Weather Normilization and Climate Design Tools
Automated 2D Heat Transfer using Grasshopper
Designing for PoE Lighting and Automation
Indoor Air Quality during lockdown - Towards a new health
integrated modeling framework
Number of Attendees
In-person attendees Online attendees

Arch
14%
Engineer
23%
Mech.
Eng
10%
Other
53%
Total (In-Person)
0%
Total (Online)
100%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2021 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
How High Can You Go -Simulation study on high-temperature cooling forradiant systems
Building Energy and SystemsAnalysis with Autodesk Revitand Insight
Weather Normilization andClimate Design Tools Automated 2D Heat Transferusing Grasshopper Designing for PoE Lightingand Automation Indoor Air Quality duringlockdown - Towards a newhealth integrated modelingframework
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:
4.25 4.41 4.30 4.53 4.73 4.30
3.53
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
Session 1: How high can you go – Simulation study on high temperature cooling for radiant
systems (3/24/21)
Title: How high can you go – Simulation study on high temperature cooling for radiant systems
Date: 03/24/21
Description: The need for cooling is a major driver of energy consumption in buildings and is mostly
handled using systems based on the refrigeration cycle, an energy- and cost-intensive process. In this
presentation, we will go over a simulation study where we investigated the potential of eliminating the
refrigeration cycle from the primary cooling system design in various US climates including all 16
California climate zones. We created single zone EnergyPlus models that use a high thermal mass
radiant system (HTMR) as the primary cooling system and meet the climate zones’ energy code
requirements. We iteratively simulated each test case on its climate’s cooling design day to determine
the highest supply water temperature (SWT) to the HTMR that maintains comfortable conditions in the
zone. The results show that HTMR can use SWT of 17.5, 20.8, 23 °C (63.5, 69.4, 73.4 °F) for the 25th,
50th, and 75th percentile, respectively, of test cases on the cooling design day, indicating a great
potential of using HTMR coupled with low -energy and -cost cooling devices like evaporative cooling
towers or fluid coolers.
Presenter: Carlos Duarte

Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 10
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Principal, Associate, PhD Candidate, Energy Analyst, President

Session 2: Building energy and systems analysis with Autodesk Revit and Insight (04/28/21)
Title: Building energy and systems analysis with Autodesk Revit and Insight
Date: 04/28/21
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
Description: In this webinar, you’ll get an overview of tools from Autodesk that provide architects and
engineers with a solution for more integrated modeling, design and analysis. This will include: 
• Revit and Automatic Energy Model Creation – Use architectural models at different levels of
detail / completeness to automatically create accurate analytical spaces and surfaces for use in
whole building energy simulation and systems analysis
• Concept/Schematic Stage Energy Analysis with Insight - Get quick, accurate guidance on whole
building energy use and cost, see tradeoffs and set targets for key architectural and engineering
factors from the earliest stages of design.
• HVAC Systems Selection and Sizing with Revit Systems Analysis - Determine HVAC equipment,
systems and zone loads, energy and comfort in an open and extensible way using EnergyPlus
and OpenStudio.
• Creating Custom Energy and Systems Analysis Workflows – Use OpenStudio measures to set
custom properties and analysis outputs to suit individual and project specific requirements.
Presenter: Ian Molloy
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 9 Other*: 18
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Project manager, product manager, VP, BIM Manager, Energy Analyst

Session 3: Weather normalization and climate design tools (05/19/21)
Title: Weather normalization and climate design tools
Date: 05/19/21
Description: The Integrated Design Lab has developed a set of free tools that can help users to visualize
building energy usage and normalize performance based on weather patterns. This makes it easy to spot
anomalies like a sudden increase in electrical consumption during the winter. This presentation will
cover the resources that IDL uses to find, filter, and format both typical and historical weather data for
any location. We will cover a variety of free data repositories and technologies available to design
professionals. These simple tools can help you track an existing building’s performance or design a new
building with an eye to minimizing thermal loads. To view the IDL's design tools please visit:
http://idlboise.com/content/design-tools
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 11
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Manager, Energy Analyst, RA, Student, Building System Analyst

Session 4: Automated 2D heat transfer using grasshopper (08/25/21)
Title: Automated 2D heat transfer using grasshopper
Date: 08/25/21
Description: The predominant tool for 2D heat transfer analysis is THERM which has a toilsome interface
for drafting and post-processing façade details. The proposed interoperable algorithmic modeling (IAM)
workflow utilizes the friendly drafting environment in Rhino as inputs to a Grasshopper (GH) file that
utilizes open source Ladybug Tools to set up, simulate and post-process unique customizable heat
transfer results. The GH file is interoperable with THERM and InDesign to generate and automate the
generation of a consistent thermal analysis report. This workflow cuts down on production time,
generates consistent outputs, and advocates interoperability in a user-friendly environment.
Presenter: Kyleen Rockwell
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: 7 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 19
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Professor, Energy Modeler, Associate, Designer, VP
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9

Session 5: Designing for PoE lighting and automation (09/22/21)
Title: Designing for PoE lighting and automation
Date: 09/22/21
Description: Power over Ethernet is transforming the world of building automation in a way that may
not be obvious - but it will be how facilities and buildings are wired above the desktop in the future (we
still need AC power - no one is refuting that) but IoT sensors, dashboards, lighting, access control,
security are already supporting this open standard in a way to push interoperability across the supply
chain and provide a seamless means toward the proverbial "single pane of glass" in a fraction of what it
costs today.
Presenter: Joe Herbst
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 1 Other*: 9 Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Designer, President, Student, Lighting Designer, Interior Designer

Session 6: Indoor Air Quality during lockdown – towards a new health integrated modeling
framework (10/20/21)
Title: Indoor Air Quality during lockdown – towards a new health integrated modeling framework
Date: 10/20/21
Description: Throughout the world governments instituted a variety of measures to try to curb the
spread of COVID-19 and improve public health. In the UK that took the shape of a nationwide lockdown
as of the 23rd of March 2020. This mandate continued until the 13th of June. These restrictions led to
atypical patterns of home occupancy, the implications of which are still unknown. The work shown in
this presentation took advantage of an existing IAQ and window operation monitoring study taking
place in east London, UK. One-year’s worth of monitored data on indoor and outdoor environment
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
parameters along with occupant use of windows was used to analyze the impact of lockdown on IAQ
and infer probabilistic models of window operation behavior. Moreover, using on-site CO2 data,
monitored occupancy and operation of windows, the team calibrated a thermal performance model of
one of the spaces to investigate the implications of alternative ventilation strategies. The use of this type
of model, one in which energy, thermal, and air quality performance is integrated has great potential to
be used to better understand how changes in our built environment impact health, and at what cost. A
conceptual framework for modelling health impact into the built environment will also be introduced.
Presenters: Elizabeth Cooper

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 3 Other*: 19 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Project Manager, President, Designer, Student, Professor

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
5. WEBSITE MAINTENANCE AND STATISTICS
The Google site “BSUG 2.0” was retired in 2020 and has been integrated into the new
idlboise.com website. Each month, details about the upcoming presentations were posted to
the ‘EVENTS and NEWS’ pages. These pages also included links to both webinar and in-person
registration, however, due to Covid-19 restrictions operations moved to online only. Monthly
emails linked to these pages as well as directly to the registration sites are sent out to users
subscribed to our mailing list. 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 video archive.
While the launch of the new idlboise.com website was planned for the second half of
the year the incorporation of BSUG into the infrastructure was a reaction to the social
distancing requirements per the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, we were unable to track our
typical user data, but, we have been migrating content throughout the year to the website
which will be posted before the end of the calendar date. The IDL will build out the necessary
structure and tools to track user data as it relates to BSUG content going forward into 2022.
Content that will be migrated consists of training and modeling resources as well as the
introduction of a blog to discuss past lecture topics and emerging building technologies or
practices.
6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
We saw a increase in average attendance for each session this year as well as overall
attendance from 2020. While we are happy that we have increased our attendance despite the
webinar format it should be noted that attendance for the treasure valley is down significantly.
Attendance this year was successful for the BSUG task with 6 sessions completed and 154 total
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
attendees – 0 in-person and 154 online. Feedback was provided by attendees via the ZOOM
platform by conducting polls at the end of lecture or when the Q&A portion started. We
received 93 responses with a response rate of 60% in 2021. The ZOOM platform does not allow
participants to give written comments as a form of feedback for polling. The IDL will investigate
other methods of online evaluations if the webinar only format continues into 2022.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A: BSUG 2021 Evaluations
Summaries of evaluations for each of the 6 sessions are recorded below. It should be
noted that comments typically collected with evaluation are available due to restriction from
the ZOOM platform.
Session 1 (03/24/21): How high can you go – Simulation study on high temperature cooling for
radiant systems
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/24/21
Location: IDL
Presenters: Carlos Duarte – CBE

Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 10 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): Total (Online): 21
*If 'Other' was noted: Principal, Associate, PhD Candidate, Energy Analyst, President
Evaluations: Scale
4.1
4.0
3.6
4.3
4.3
3.6
3.3
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
Session 2 (04/28/21): Building energy and systems analysis with Autodesk Revit and Insight
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/28/2021
Location: IDL
Presenter: Ian Molloy – Autodesk
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: 7 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 20
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online): 33
*If 'Other' was noted: Project manager, product manager, VP, BIM Manager, Energy Analyst

Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.1 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.4
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
Session 3 (05/19/21): Weather normalization and climate design tools
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/19/2021
Location: Webinar
Presenter: Damon Woods – IDL
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 11
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 0
Total (Online): 27
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Manager, Energy Analyst, RA, Student, Building System Analyst

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.5 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.3
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
Session 4 (08/25/21): Automated 2D heat transfer using Grasshopper
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/25/2021
Location: IDL
Presenter: Kyleen Rockwell – HKS

Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: 7 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 19 Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): Total (Online): 32
*If 'Other' was noted: Professor, Energy Modeler, Associate, Designer, VP
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent The content of the presentation was: 3.8 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
Session 5 (09/22/21): Designing for PoE Lighting Automation
Session 6 (10/20/21): Indoor Air Quality during lockdown – towards a new health integrated
modeling framework
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/20/2021
Location: IDL
Presenters: Elizabeth Cooper – UCL

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 3 Other*: 19 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): 0 Total (Online): 28
*If 'Other' was noted: Project Manager, President, Designer, Student, Professor
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/22/2021
Location: IDL
Presenters: Joe Herbst – PoE Texas

Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 1 Other*: 9 Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): Total (Online): 13
*If 'Other' was noted: Designer, President, Student, Lighting Designer, Interior Designer
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.3 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate delivery of presentation: 4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent The content of the presentation was: 3.3 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17

Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.2 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent The content of the presentation was: 4.1 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.

Report Number: 2021_004-01

2021 TASK 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2021

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 Street Suite #360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT #

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2021). 2021 TASK 4:
New Construction Verifications – Summary of Projects (2021_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
2021 Task 4: New Construction Verifications - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_004-01)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. 2021 New Construction Verification Projects ............................................................................. 1
3. 2021 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
2021 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_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 2021. The primary role is 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 projects
paid in 2021, and at least four projects were required to be outside the
Boise/Meridian/Eagle/Kuna area. The purpose of the project reviews and on site verifications is
to assist IPC in program quality assurance. The on site verification also looks to capture any
inconsistences between the final application and what was installed on site. The secondary role
is 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.
The review and letter provides IPC the information needed to pay the L3 incentive and increase
energy savings and quality of design through the inclusion of additional design and
commissioning recommendations.
2. 2021 NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROJECTS
The UI-IDL completed twelve New Construction Verification projects in 2021. 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 2021 were
finalized and paid in 2021. One project resides under the 2016 program and the rest reside
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2021 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_004-01)

2

under the 2018 program format. The specific incentives for this program are outlined in Table 1
and 2.
Table 1: 2016 New Construction Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction
L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning A1 Efficient Air-Cooled AC & Heat Pump Units
A2 Efficient VRF Units
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4
A5
A6
Air Side Economizers
Direct Evaporative Coolers
Evaporative Pre-coolers on Air-cooled
Condensers
Building Shell B1 Reflective Roof Treatment
Controls C1 Energy Management Control System
C2 Guest Room Energy Management System
C3
C4
C5
HVAC Variable Speed Drives
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Drives
Appliances with Electric Water
Heating
W1
D1
D2
Efficient Laundry Machines
EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
EnergyStar Commercial Dishwasher
Refrigeration

R1
R2
R3
Head Pressure Controls
Floating Suction Controls
Efficient Condensers
Other P1 Smart Strip Power Strips

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2021 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_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
A6
Air Side Economizers
Direct Evaporative Coolers
High-Volume Low-Speed Fan
Building Shell B1 Reflective Roof Treatment
Controls C1 Energy Management Control System
C2 Guest Room Energy Management System
C3
C4
C5
HVAC Variable Speed Drives
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Drives
C6 Dairy Vacuum Pump Variable Speed Drives
C7 Wall or Engine-Block Heater Controls
Appliances with Electric Water
Heating
W1
D1
D2
Efficient Laundry Machines
EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
EnergyStar Commercial Dishwasher
Refrigeration

R1
R2
R3
Head Pressure Controls
Floating Suction Controls
Efficient Condensers
R4 Refrigerator and Freezer Strip Curtains
R5 Automatic High-Speed Doors
Office Equipment P1 Smart Strip Power Strips
Compressed Air Equipment CA1 Air Compressor VSDs
CA2 No-Loss Condensate Drain
CA3 Low-Pressure Drop Filter
CA4 Cycling Refrigerated Compressed Air Dryer
CA5 Efficient Compressed Air Nozzle

Table 3 summarizes the twelve projects and respective qualified incentive measures
which were verified by UI-IDL. For the projects listed, more than 75% were located outside the
capital service area.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2021 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_004-01)

4

Table 3: Project Summary
IPC Project
#
Facility
Description Location Incentive
Measures
UI-IDL
Site-Visit Date
16-144 Medical (Hospital) Nampa, ID L1, L4, L5 07/09/21
18-081 Manufacturing Nampa, ID L1, L2, L5 07/09/21
18-083 Retail (Non-Food) Star, ID L1, L2 10/13/21
18-106 Industrial – Mid Ontario, OR L1, L2 08/27/21
18-284 Warehouse Jerome, ID L1 10/27/21
18-302 Medical (Non-
Hospital) Jerome, ID L1, L2, L5, A1 10/27/21
18-315 Other Boise, ID L1, L5 08/26/21
18-411 Industrial – Mid Meridian, ID CA1, CA2 10/01/21
18-431 Other Nampa, ID L1 08/13/21
18-503 Manufacturing (1
Shift) Fruitland, ID CA1, CA4 11/10/21
18-518 Manufacturing (1
Shift) Eagle, ID CA1 09/15/21
18-537 Industrial – Large Blackfoot, ID CA1 09/01/21
3. 2021 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS
In 2021, the UI-IDL received two inquiries regarding the New Construction photo
controls incentive review, however, only one qualified for an incentive. Documentation was
received and final letters of support were submitted to IPC for photo controls incentive
applications for the single project.

Report Number: 2021_005-05

2021 TASK 5: ENERGY RESOURCE LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2021

Idaho Power Company
Dylan Agnes

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front St. Suite 360 Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

Damon Woods

Dylan Agnes

Idaho Power Company
IPC KIT# 5277

Agnes, D. (2021). 2021 TASK
5: Energy Resource Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2021_005-05). 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. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8
2. Marketing ................................................................................................................................... 9
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan .......................................................................................... 12
4. 2021 Summary of Loans ........................................................................................................ 14
5. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 18

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
ERL Energy Resource 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
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

1. Introduction
The Energy Resource Library (ERL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company
(IPC) and managed by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The ERL 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 ERL 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 ERL. 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 submit a resource questionnaire and fill out a form describing their intent and
project information. Customers can also add tools to their “cart” and complete a checkout
process if they don’t require the IDL assistance. When completing a resource questionnaire
or the checkout process, the customer includes basic background information, project and
data measurement requirements, and goals. When a request is submitted, UI-IDL staff
members are alerted of a request 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. In addition, this year because
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

of the Covid-19 pandemic we added a contactless pick-up and drop-off system. For more
details on this process please see: http://www.idlboise.com/content/energy-resource-
library-contact-less-pick-drop

2. Marketing
Marketing for the ERL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2021,
as well as on the new idlboise.com website. The flyer layout was retired during 2019 and
replaced with a brochure format. The brochure for the ERL, Figure 1 and 2, reflects the
changes to the ERL overall structure as it relates to checking out tools and new
categories/organization. In addition, a catalog was created that contains the full directory of
tools available for check out as well as information about other Idaho Power sponsored
programs. It’s intended use was for distribution at various lectures so firms would have an
on-hand reference for the ERL, however, due to Covid-19 the catalog has only been made
available as a pdf for download and view on the idlboise.com website. You can find the
catalog here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2021
The ERL 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 ERL flyer and program slides direct potential users to the ERL website for more
information about the library. The main UI-IDL website hosts the ERL portal where customers
can submit a resource questionnaire for assist or a request for specific tools, all online. In
2021, the ERL home page had 1,483 visitors. Changes and progress on the ERL homepage
can be found in Appendix D. (http://www.idlboise.com/about-erl)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan
In 2021, ten new tools were added to the ERL to replace old data logging models, to
fill gaps in tool kits as well as accessories for kits and other various tools.
Equipment 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. The management of the ERL has be adapted to integrate the measurement
and verification method of calibration. However, 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 or the Air-Data Multimeter which would have to be recalibrated by the
manufacturer.
The IDL performs the following to ensure items are within specified calibration
tolerances:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_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.
Furthermore, calibration tracking columns have been added to the inventory
spreadsheet which allows the IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing.
Updates to calibration and references to testing data will be maintained in the inventory
spreadsheet and has been expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

4. 2021 Summary of Loans
In 2021, loan requests totaled 10 with 9 loans completed, 0 loans are on-going. The
fourth quarter had the highest volume of loans at 3 total. Loans were made to 4 different
locations and 3 unique users and 4 new ERL 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. The one loan that was not fulfilled
because they did not meet the requirement of being an Idaho Power customer.
Due to Covid-19 and the restrictions associated with it we saw a decrease in loans
over the past year and a half. Moving forward into 2022 we are devoting resources to
market the ERL to potential users in order to return to normal frequency of use. For
example, we will be presenting the ERL to municipalities in the treasure valley specifically
addressing the benefits of the library to facilities managers and public works departments.
More details about the ERL marketing strategy can be found in the 2022 scope of work.
Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for ERL in 2021.
02/16/21 Boise ID RFLO Identify EEMs 1
04/01/21 Boise ID EAOFE Identify EEMs 1
05/24/21 Idaho Falls ID DBF116 Audit 18
09/10/21 Boise ID OR51SP Identify EEMs 3
10/08/21 Boise ID BRCHK2 Identify EEMs 1
11/24/21 Emmett ID EEAPLDL Audit 14
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

2
2
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Preliminary Investigation / Audit / Study to Identify Energy Efficiency
Measures (EEMs)
Loans by Type
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2 2 2
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
2
1 1
2
1 1 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
Total
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

0 2 4 6 8
Boise
Garden City
Idaho Falls
Emmett
ID
Loans by Location
2021
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
University 1
Company 10
Company 11
Company 12
University 3
Student
Company 14
Tool Summary
2021
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

2
1
6
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
5
4
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Capture Hood Kit
CO2 Logger
Continental Control Systems, LLC ACT Split-Core CT
Dent ElitePro XC Power Meter
Extech Light Meter
Extech Thermo-Anemometer
FLIR C2 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR E50bx
FLIR ONE Thermal Imaging Camera - iOS
Fluke 116 HVAC Multimeter
Fluke 43B Handheld Instrument
Fluke AC/DC Current Clamp
Fluke Infrared Thermometer
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
HOBO U12-013 Data Logger
MX1104 Data Logger
Occupancy and Light Data Logger - Narrow
Plug Load Data Logger
Sling Psychrometer
VOC and Temperature Monitor w/ Data Logging
Tool Summary
2021
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

5. Appendices
APPENDIX A: Equipment List
The equipment in the library is tracked via excel, website, and in ERL Catalog. The
website inventory is organized through several webpages but a complete listing can be
found here: http://www.idlboise.com/erl
In addition, the ERL Catalog can be found on the idlboise.com website and is
available for download here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2021
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2021 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2021_005-05)

APPENDIX C: Website Progress
The majority of work has shifted to maintenance for website development.

Report Number: 2021_001-06

2020 TASK 6: ENERGY IMPACTS OF IAQ
DEVICES

IDAHO POWER COMPANY YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2021

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Damon Woods

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E. Front St., Suite 360, Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Damon Woods

Author:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
IPC KIT # 5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2021). 2021
TASK 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices (2021_001-06).
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
RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN THIS
REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS
ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF
UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY
OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT
OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE,
USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED
BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL
RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S),
SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR
MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Appendix – Project Reports ................................................................................................. 15

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity [kBtu/ft2/yr]
HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NBPI Needle Point Bi-Polar Ionization
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Lab
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UVGI Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
VAV Variable Air Volume
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) examined the energy
impacts of indoor air quality devices. The IDL used the energy modeling software,
EnergyPlus to estimate the effects of adding higher-rated filters, in-room HEPA filters,
Ultraviolet Irradiation, ionization devices, and increasing the percentage of outdoor air.
The IDL selected eight of the sixteen prototype models from the Pacific Northwest
National Lab to simulate these operational adjustments. The energy models were run
for climate zone 5B with Idaho Power tariffs to estimate the change in annual operating
costs of the facility from adopting each of these technologies. The IDL performed brief
literature reviews on each of these technologies that can be integrated into current
Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems. These reviews were turned
into 1-page reference documents outlining the major points and energy impacts of each
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) strategy for Idaho facility managers and owners.

2. WORK SUMMARY
2.1 Comparing the mitigation strategies
The IDL considered five mitigation strategies and an additional three subcategories that
improve indoor air quality. These included:
1. Upgrading Minimum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) of filters
2. Adding High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters (both in-duct and portable in-
room systems)
3. Using Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) lamps (both in-duct and stand-
alone in-room systems)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

4. Adding Needle-Point Bipolar Ionization (NBPI) to the supply air
5. Increasing Outdoor Air (OA) considered both a minimum of 3 Air Changes per
Hour (ACH) of OA and also relying on 100% OA.
2.1.1 Upgrading MERV filter ratings
There is no minimum MERV rating required by Idaho’s Energy Code. Idaho’s Energy
Code Circuit Rider, David Freelove, estimates that most small commercial buildings in
Idaho Power territory use MERV 6 filters. ASHRAE recommends using MERV 13 or
better filters. This mitigation strategy can help by filtering out virus particles from the
return air stream in the HVAC system. While some filter switches can be simple, careful
consideration must be given to ensure that the new filters will fit into the same space
and that the existing fan can accommodate the additional pressure drop across the
filter. Otherwise, more substantial upgrades must be made to the ventilation system to
accommodate the new filter.
2.1.2 Adding HEPA filters
HEPA filters can be added to a building in two ways – either through the existing air
supply duct or by setting up portable in-room units. In-duct HEPA filters are typically
much larger than a MERV filter and can have much higher pressure drops across them.
It can take considerable modifications to add a HEPA filter if the existing system was
designed for a thinner low-value MERV filter. These filters also tend to be more
expensive and so they have a significant maintenance cost as these filters must be
regularly replaced.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Portable HEPA units provide a plug and play option that is more effective than
MERV filters at removing sub-micron and nanoparticles. Units can be moved throughout
a space to optimize their effectiveness. HEPA units do take up floor space and require
an electrical outlet. They can be noisy at high speeds and additional maintenance is
required to care for the units and change out filters when needed. Portable HEPA units
are the simplest way to maximize filtration without modifying the existing building
ventilation system. However, due to the high costs associated (both capital and
operating), in-room HEPA filters are best suited for areas where contamination risk is
higher or when outdoor air does not meet air quality standards (e.g., during inversions
or wildfire smoke events).
2.1.3 Using Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
In-duct UVGI prevents microbial growth on cooling coils, which can reduce fan
energy and can result in net energy savings depending on the building type and airflow.
Sizing and layout of the UV lamps greatly impacts performance. Proper installation is
necessary to ensure effective air disinfection and cooling coil maintenance. An
irradiance of at least 1,000 mW/cm2 and an exposure time of 0.25 seconds or longer is
needed to properly kill viruses in the airstream.
In-room UVGI units often include an additional HEPA filter to remove particulates
as well as sanitize the air. This is a powerful method of disinfection, which requires
significant capital and operational costs. In-room UVGI units are well-suited for
healthcare facilities and spaces with higher sanitation requirements. In other settings,
an in-room HEPA filter is often a more suitable alternative.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

2.1.4 Adding Needlepoint Bipolar Ionization to air supply
NBPI is an exciting technology that shows great potential at being a low-energy
air cleaner. While some studies have shown that NBPI destroys certain viral
components, open questions remain on its effectiveness against Covid19. Low quality
NBPI devices may produce Ozone, which is harmful at high concentrations and should
be continuously monitored. NBPI’s energy use is quite low compared to UVGI or even
adding better filters.
2.1.5 Increasing Outdoor Air
Increasing the supply of fresh air is an excellent way to reduce indoor
contaminants but relying on this year-round used more energy than most other
mitigation strategies. However, for temporary mitigation, it may prove an effective
strategy to flush out contaminants as long as the equipment is sized to handle the load
and occupant comfort is not severely compromised. The results shown in the flyers (in
the Appendix) are for requiring 3 ACH of outdoor air for occupied spaces. This was
already the case for some building types, such as a restaurant, but was a significant
increase for other facilities such as apartments and retail. Increasing outdoor air will
increase maintenance costs for more filter changes and will increase wear and tear on
the equipment. These impacts were challenging to quantify, but is noted in the flyer.
2.2 Developing the Energy Models
2.2.1 Selecting the building prototypes
The IDL worked with Idaho Power (IPC) to select the eight most relevant building types
for IPC customers. These building types included:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

 Warehouse
 Standalone Retail
 Secondary School
 Mid-Rise Apartments
 Medium Office
 Large Hotel
 Hospital
 Full-service Restaurant

Table 1: Building Prototype Information
Building Type Footage of Stories Heating Cooling Distribution Systems

Medium Office 53600 3 Furnace PACU MZ 3

Stand-Alone
Retail 24695 1 Furnace PACU ZN PSZ-AC 4

Secondary
School 210900 2 Boiler Air Cooled Chiller MZ VAV VAV

Hospital 241410 5 Boiler Chiller CAV + VAV 2 VAV

Large Hotel 122132 6 Boiler Air Colled Chiller DOAS + VAV 2

Warehouse 49495 1 Furnace PACU ZN HVAC 2

Full-Service
Restaurant 5502 1 Furnace PACU ZN PSZ-AC 2

Mid-Rise
Apartment 33700 4 Furnace per apt) SAC 24

2.2.2 Modeling the IAQ Devices
Each of the prototype models were adjusted to account for adding an IAQ device and
this was different for each technology. The specific steps are outlined below:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

 Upgrading MERV Filters – increased pressure drop across fan by 0.4” H2O
 HEPA Filters
o In-duct HEPA filters – increased pressure drop across the fan by 1.25”
H2O
o Portable in-room HEPA filters – added 3.14 Watts/person in plug loads
 NPBI – added plug load of 1Watt/5,300 CFM
 UVGI
o In Room UVGI – added plug load of 1Watt/50 CFM
o In Duct UVGI – added plug load and decreased pressure drop: 1Watt/50
CFM and 20% pressure reduction across cooling coil.
 Outdoor Air – increasing percentage of outdoor air from ASHRAE 62.1 minimum
o Increased OA to at least 3ACH in occupied zones for IOA runs
o Increased OA to be100% of the airflow for 100% OA runs

2.3 Running the Energy Simulations
Each of the models was set according to the 90.1-2010 baseline and run using Boise’s
climate data and local utility rates. A complete list of the outputs is available in the
appendix. In general, devices that increased the pressure drop or served as plug loads
within the space increased electricity prices but decreased gas bills. This is because the
heat generated from fan work reduced the heating requirements.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

2.4 Results
Capital and maintenance costs were acquired through contacting local vendors and
using RSMeans. Operating costs were determined using energy models and 2021
standard commercial tariffs for Idaho Power and Intermountain Gas.

Table 2: Technology costs for each mitigation strategy
Technology Capital Costs
(Equipment +
Installation)
Costs Cost (including filter
replacement)
[$/1000cfm][$/1000cfm][$/1000cfm]
Baseline $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
MERV 13 $24.56 $17.19 $7.35
HEPA (portable) $1,400.00 $18.28 $141.91
HEPA (in duct) $300.00 $69.50 $300.00
UVGI (in room) $9,394.81 $151.17 $150.00
UVGI (in duct) $83.82 $74.25 $100.00
NBPI $1,104.31 $47.77 $98.57
IOA $0.00 $259.65 $0.00

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Figure 1: Energy use increase for each of the technologies averaged for the eight building types studied
Of the technologies surveyed, increasing outdoor airflow for non-Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems (non-DOAS) proved to have the highest energy impact. Adding UVGI in-duct
lowered energy use on average by reducing the fan energy across the cooling coil as it
prevents microbial growth. NBPI had a very low energy impact, but questions remain on
its effectiveness. Increasing to MERV 13 filters proves the next-lowest energy impact as
long as the existing system is capable of handling the new filters.

0.00 0.14 0.29 0.67 1.18
-0.05
0.00
4.11
12.07
-2.000.002.004.006.008.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
KW
H
/
S
Q
F
T
/
Y
R
Annual Energy Use
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

3. APPENDIX – FLYERS AND SIMULATION RESULTS

Appendix A: Bibliography by topic:
General HVAC:
ASHRAE. “ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force.” Core Recommendations for Reducing Airborne
Infectious Aerosol Exposure , 2021, Accessed 2021.
ASHRAE. “Filtration and Air Cleaning Summary .” ASHRAE, 25 May 2021, [e-mail].
Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Bean, Meghan, et al. 2020, Air Cleaner Specification and Baseline Assessment Review.
Formusa, Brian, and Tim Ross. “Covid_10 Recommendations for Facilities.” Hailey, ID, June
2020.
Tawfik, Aly, et al. Fresno, CA, 2020, COVID-19 Public Transit Bus Air Circulation Study .
Kowalski, Wladyslaw J. Immune Building Systems Technology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
2003.
ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Systems and Equipment. 2016, pp. 29.2-29.12.
HEPA:
Alavy, Masih, and Jeffrey A. Siegel. “IAQ and Energy Implications of High Efficiency Filters in
Residential Buildings: A Review (RP-1649).” Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, vol. 25, no. 3, 2019, pp. 261–271.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2018.1526012.
Cho, Kyungjoo, et al. “Changes in Fan Energy Consumption According to Filters Installed in
Residential Heat Recovery Ventilators in Korea.” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 18, 2021, p.
10119., https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810119.
Chuaybamroong, P., et al. “Efficacy of Photocatalytic HEPA Filter on Microorganism Removal.”
Indoor Air, vol. 20, no. 3, 2010, pp. 246–254., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0668.2010.00651.x.
Fisk, W. J., et al. “Performance and Costs of Particle Air Filtration Technologies.” Indoor Air, vol.
12, no. 4, 2002, pp. 223–234., https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2002.01136.x.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Malhotra, Vikas. “A Low-Cost Solution for Retrofitment of HEPA Filter in Healthcare Facilities
Providing Care to Covid-19 Patients.” Indian Pediatrics, vol. 57, no. 5, 2020, pp. 477–477.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-020-1830-x.
Waggoner, Charles A., and Michael S. Parsons. “Factors Influencing the Performance and
Lifetime of Fibrous Glass and Metal Media HEPA Filters.” ASME 2009 12th International
Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Volume
1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1115/icem2009-16285.
Xiang, Jianbang, et al. “Energy Consumption of Using HEPA-Based Portable Air Cleaner in
Residences: A Monitoring Study in Seattle, US.” Energy and Buildings, vol. 236, 2021, p.
110773., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110773.

Increased Outdoor Air:
ASHRAE. “ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force.” Core Recommendations for Reducing Airborne
Infectious Aerosol Exposure , 2021, Accessed 2021.
ASHRAE. “Filtration and Air Cleaning Summary .” ASHRAE, 25 May 2021, [e-mail].
Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
MERV:
Alavy, Masih, and Jeffrey A. Siegel. “IAQ and Energy Implications of High Efficiency Filters in
Residential Buildings: A Review (RP-1649).” Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, vol. 25, no. 3, 2019, pp. 261–271.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2018.1526012.
Azimi, Parham, and Brent Stephens. “HVAC Filtration for Controlling Infectious Airborne Disease
Transmission in Indoor Environments: Predicting Risk Reductions and Operational Costs.”
Building and Environment, vol. 70, 2013, pp. 150–160.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.025.
Vine, Ed, and Jayant Sathaye. “Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting,
Verification, and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change
Mitigation.” 1999, https://doi.org/10.2172/7288.
Zaatari, Marwa, et al. “The Relationship between Filter Pressure Drop, Indoor Air Quality, and
Energy Consumption in Rooftop HVAC Units.” Building and Environment, vol. 73, 2014, pp. 151–
161., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.12.010.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Owen, Kathleen, and Carolyn G. Kerr. "Debunking Myths About MERV, Air Filtration." ASHRAE, 8
Dec. 2020.
NBPI:
ASHRAE. “Filtration and Air Cleaning Summary .” ASHRAE, 25 May 2021, [e-mail].
Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Licht, Stephanie, et al. “Use of Bipolar Ionization for Disinfection within Airplanes.” Boeing,
2021, Accessed 2021.
Zeng, Yicheng, et al. “Evaluating a Commercially Available in-Duct Bipolar Ionization Device for
Pollutant Removal and Potential Byproduct Formation.” Building and Environment, vol. 195,
2021, p. 107750.
UVGI:
Firrantello, Joseph, and William Bahnfleth. “Simulation and Monetization of Collateral Airborne
Infection Risk Improvements from Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Coil
Maintenance.” Science and Technology for the Built Environment, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp.
135–148., https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1409267.
HPAC Engineering. “Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Lamps Can Help Clean Coils and Improve
Indoor Air Quality .” UVGI Design Basics for Air and Surface Disinfection , Department of
Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University , 2000, Accessed 2021.
"Fundamentals of UVGI." ASHRAE, 12 May 2021, Online Webinar
Lee, Bruno. “Effects of Installation Location on Performance and Economics of in-Duct
Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Systems for Air Disinfection .” RAPID, 2013.
Luo, Hao, and Lexuan Zhong. “Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) for in-Duct Airborne
Bioaerosol Disinfection: Review and Analysis of Design Factors.” Building and
Environment, vol. 197, 2021, p. 107852., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107852.
Luongo, Julia C., et al. “Ultraviolet Germicidal Coil Cleaning: Impact on Heat Transfer
Effectiveness and Static Pressure Drop.” Building and Environment, vol. 112, 2017, pp.
159–165., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.022.
“Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment .” 2019 Ashrae Handbook: Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning Applications, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 2011, pp. 62.1–62.17, Accessed 2021.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Appendix B: Simulation Results
Table 3: Simulation results for each of the mitigation strategies considered

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Warehouse Baseline 17.4 $10,613 $1,899 $12,512
(49,495 sqft) MERV 13 17.5 $10,717 $1,871 $12,588
HEPA (portable)17.4 $10,618 $1,899 $12,516
HEPA 17.5 $10,938 $1,817 $12,755
UVGI (in room) 17.6 $10,824 $1,892 $12,716
UVGI (in duct) 17.4 $10,523 $1,930 $12,453
NBPI 17.4 $10,613 $1,899 $12,512
IOA (3ach) 20.4 $10,702 $2,798 $13,500
100% OA 24.7 $10,701 $4,088 $14,789

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Stand Alone Retail Baseline 51.0 $16,858 $1,978 $18,836
(24,695 sqft) MERV 51.9 $17,406 $1,919 $19,325
HEPA (portable)51.5 $17,181 $1,948 $19,129
HEPA 53.8 $18,575 $1,787 $20,362
UVGI (in room) 53.1 $18,018 $1,922 $19,940
UVGI (in duct) 50.2 $16,220 $2,060 $18,281
NBPI 51.0 $16,859 $1,978 $18,837
IOA (3ach) 101.0 $17,787 $8,917 $26,703
100% OA 117.9 $17,817 $11,283 $29,100

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Secondary School Baseline 56.4 $118,089 $31,161 $149,250
(210,900 sqft) MERV 56.6 $119,063 $31,065 $150,128
HEPA (Portable)57.8 $125,005 $30,320 $155,325
HEPA 56.9 $121,185 $30,856 $152,041
UVGI (in room) 56.5 $117,228 $31,314 $148,542
UVGI (in duct) 59.7 $130,906 $30,491 $161,397
NBPI 56.4 $118,105 $31,160 $149,265
IOA (3ach) 61.5 $199,336 $36,786 $236,122
100% OA 70.1 $121,648 $45,951 $167,599
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Mid-Rise Apartments Baseline 49.0 $24,288 $1,619 $25,908
(33,700 sqft) MERV 49.2 $24,861 $1,519 $26,380
HEPA (Portable)51.1 $26,229 $1,293 $27,522
HEPA 50.9 $26,085 $1,316 $27,401
UVGI (In room) 57.3 $30,373 $926 $31,300
UVGI (in duct) 49.1 $24,438 $1,593 $26,030
NBPI 49.0 $24,290 $1,619 $25,909
IOA (3ach) 89.2 $25,675 $8,959 $34,634
100% OA 105.8 $24,002 $12,755 $36,757

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Medium Office Baseline 33.7 $30,238 $1,540 $31,778
(53,600 sqft) MERV 33.8 $30,419 $1,532 $31,951
HEPA (Portable)33.9 $30,533 $1,528 $32,061
HEPA 34.0 $30,761 $1,519 $32,280
UVGI (in room) 36.1 $32,826 $1,400 $34,225
UVGI (in duct) 34.8 $30,955 $1,529 $32,484
NBPI 33.7 $30,241 $1,540 $31,780
IOA (3ach) 45.1 $32,216 $4,739 $36,955
100% OA 46.7 $32,480 $5,196 $37,676

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Baseline 105.1 $79,978 $46,602 $126,580
Large Hotel MERV 105.5 $80,960 $46,574 $127,534
(122,132 sqft) HEPA (Portable)106.1 $81,939 $40,341 $122,280
HEPA 106.4 $82,857 $40,286 $123,143
UVGI (in room) 113.4 $94,844 $46,909 $141,753
UVGI (in duct) 104.3 $78,657 $46,602 $125,259
NBPI 105.1 $79,985 $46,578 $126,562
IOA* (3ach) 105.1 $79,978 $46,602 $126,580
100% OA 115.2 $79,850 $53,385 $133,235

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 20
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Baseline 99.5 $260,531 $40,459 $300,990
Hospital MERV 99.6 $261,219 $40,447 $301,666
(241,410 sqft) HEPA (Portable)99.7 $262,035 $40,210 $302,245
HEPA 102.3 $271,866 $40,330 $312,196
UVGI (in room) 104.4 $280,339 $46,162 $326,500
UVGI (in duct) 97.8 $253,945 $46,739 $300,684
NBPI 99.5 $260,545 $46,685 $307,230
IOA* (3ach) 102.0 $266,845 $47,615 $314,460
100% OA 125.9 $281,310 $73,070 $354,381

Total Site EUI
(kBtu/ft^2)
Electricity
($)
Natural
Gas ($)
Energy
Costs ($)
Full Service Restaurant Baseline 462.9 $14,885 $8,191 $23,076
(5,502 sqft) MERV 464.6 $15,221 $8,133 $23,354
HEPA (Portable)465.3 $15,284 $8,132 $23,416
HEPA 471.4 $16,437 $9,447 $25,884
UVGI (in room) 468.7 $15,861 $8,048 $23,909
UVGI(in duct) 460.5 $14,395 $9,844 $24,239
NBPI 462.9 $14,885 $9,742 $24,627
IOA* (3ach) 462.9 $14,885 $8,191 $23,076
100% OA 598.2 $15,194 $13,905 $29,099

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 21
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Appendix C: Flyers

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 22
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 23
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 24
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 25
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 26
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 27
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 28
2020 Task 6: Energy Impacts of IAQ Devices- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #2021_001-0)

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 167
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2021 Demand Response Programs Overall/Combined Survey Results Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2021 Idaho Power Home Energy Report
Customer Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2021 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2021 Retrofits Program Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2021 SBDI Program Customer Satisfaction
Survey Reponses
Commercial/Industrial DNV DNV Survey
2021 Shade Tree Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 168 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

Reason for participating in Demand Response
program
Flex Peak
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participants
A/C Cool Credit
Participants
Want to help overall electrical usage on hot summer
days 21%13%43%
Want bill credit/incentive 58%77%28%
Seems like the right thing to do 13%7%25%
Other 8%3%4%
21%
58%
13%
8%
13%
77%
7%3%
43%
28%25%
4%
Want to help overall electrical
usage on hot summer days
Want bill credit/incentive Seems like the right thing to do Other
Reason for participating in Demand Response program
Flex Peak Participants Peak Rewards Participants A/C Cool Credit Participants
Reason for not participating in Demand Response
program
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Non-Participants
A/C Cool Credit
Non-
Participants
Wasn’t aware of program 27%62%38%
Isn't willing to shut down/shed load/turn off A/C 18%14%25%
Doesn’t have ability to shut down/shed load/no
central A/C 36%6%20%
Other 18%18%17%
27%
18%
36%
18%
62%
14%
6%
18%
38%
25%
20%
17%
Wasn’t aware of program Isn't willing to shut down/shed load/turn
off A/C
Doesn’t have ability to shut down/shed
load/no central A/C
Other
Reason for not participating in Demand Response program
Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Non-Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-Participants
Ability to participate in program if season is
extended to September 15
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 17%30%12%16%2%14%
Able 83%70%88%84%98%86%
Unable, 17%Unable, 30%Unable, 12%Unable, 16%Unable, 2%Unable, 14%
Able, 83%
Able, 70%
Able, 88%Able, 84%
Able, 98%
Able, 86%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate in program if season is extended to September 15
Ability to participate in program if event hours are 5
PM - 9 PM.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 21%50%12%28%13%45%
Able 79%50%88%72%87%55%
Unable, 21%
Unable, 50%Unable, 12%Unable, 28%Unable, 13%Unable, 45%
Able, 79%
Able, 50%
Able, 88%
Able, 72%
Able, 87%
Able, 55%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate in program if event hours are 5 PM -9 PM
Ability to participate in program if event hours are 6
PM - 10 PM.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 29%50%41%39%20%47%
Able 71%50%59%61%80%53%
Unable, 29%Unable, 50%Unable, 41%Unable, 39%Unable, 20%Unable, 47%
Able, 71%
Able, 50%
Able, 59%Able, 61%
Able, 80%
Able, 53%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate in program if event hours are 6 PM -10 PM
Ability to participate in program if event hours are 7
PM - 11 PM.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 33%50%70%43%23%36%
Able 67%50%30%57%77%64%
Unable, 33%Unable, 50%Unable, 70%Unable, 43%Unable, 23%Unable, 36%
Able, 67%
Able, 50%
Able, 30%
Able, 57%
Able, 77%
Able, 64%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate in program if event hours are 7 PM -11 PM
Ability to participate in program if event hours are
extended to 5 or 6 hours or more.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 33%50%47%24%10%31%
Able 67%50%53%76%90%69%
Unable, 33%Unable, 50%Unable, 47%Unable, 24%Unable, 10%Unable, 31%
Able, 67%
Able, 50%Able, 53%
Able, 76%
Able, 90%
Able, 69%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate in program if event hours are extended to 5 or 6 hours or more
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 4 events per week.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 17%70%29%25%3%21%
Able 83%30%71%75%97%79%
Unable, 17%Unable, 70%Unable, 29%Unable, 25%Unable, 3%Unable, 21%
Able, 83%
Able, 30%
Able, 71%Able, 75%
Able, 97%
Able, 79%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 4 events per week
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 5 events per week.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 54%80%70%54%17%57%
Able 46%20%30%46%83%43%
Unable, 54%Unable, 80%Unable, 70%Unable, 54%
Unable, 17%
Unable, 57%
Able, 46%
Able, 20%
Able, 30%
Able, 46%
Able, 83%
Able, 43%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 6 events per week.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 71%80%88%65%32%68%
Able 29%20%12%35%68%32%
Unable, 71%Unable, 80%Unable, 88%Unable, 65%Unable, 32%Unable, 68%
Able, 29%
Able, 20%
Able, 12%
Able, 35%
Able, 68%
Able, 32%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-
Participants
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-
Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 6 events per week
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 16 hours per week.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 21%40%29%24%N/A N/A
Able 79%60%71%76%N/A N/A
Unable, 21%
Unable, 40%
Unable, 29%Unable, 24%
Able, 79%
Able, 60%
Able, 71%Able, 76%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 16 hours per week
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 17 hours per week.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 67%80%70%51%N/A N/A
Able 33%20%30%49%N/A N/A

Unable, 67%
Unable, 80%
Unable, 70%
Unable, 51%
Able, 33%
Able, 20%
Able, 30%
Able, 49%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 17 hours per week
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 18 hours per week.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 75%80%86%61%N/A N/A
Able 25%20%14%39%N/A N/A
Unable, 75%Unable, 80%Unable, 86%
Unable, 61%
Able, 25%Able, 20%Able, 14%
Able, 39%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 18 hours per week
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 16 events per season.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable N/A N/A N/A N/A 6%27%
Able N/A N/A N/A N/A 94%73%
Unable, 6%
Unable, 27%
Able, 94%
Able, 73%
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-Participants
Ability to participate if A/C Cool Credit program allows a maximum of 16 events per season
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 17 events per season.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable N/A N/A N/A N/A 17%55%
Able N/A N/A N/A N/A 83%45%

Unable, 17%
Unable, 55%
Able, 83%
Able, 45%
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-Participants
Ability to participate if A/C Cool Credit program allows a maximum of 17 events per season
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 18 events per season.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable N/A N/A N/A N/A 25%60%
Able N/A N/A N/A N/A 75%40%
Unable, 25%
Unable, 60%
Able, 75%
Able, 40%
A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-Participants
Ability to participate if A/C Cool Credit program allows a maximum of 18 events per season
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 64 hours per season.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 17%50%18%23%N/A N/A
Able 83%50%82%77%N/A N/A
Unable, 17%
Unable, 50%
Unable, 18%Unable, 23%
Able, 83%
Able, 50%
Able, 82%Able, 77%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 64 hours per season
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 68 hours per season.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 42%70%49%41%N/A N/A
Able 58%30%51%59%N/A N/A

Unable, 42%
Unable, 70%
Unable, 49%
Unable, 41%
Able, 58%
Able, 30%
Able, 51%
Able, 59%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 68 hours per season
Ability to participate in program allows a maximum
of 72 hours per season.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 63%70%70%52%N/A N/A
Able 38%30%30%48%N/A N/A
Unable, 63%
Unable, 70%Unable, 70%
Unable, 52%
Able, 38%
Able, 30%Able, 30%
Able, 48%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants Peak Rewards Participant Peak Rewards Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program allows a maximum of 72 hours per season
Ability to participate in program also runs on
Saturday.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Unable 42%50%N/A N/A 12%30%
Able 58%50%N/A N/A 88%70%
Unable, 42%
Unable, 50%
Unable, 12%
Unable, 30%
Able, 58%
Able, 50%
Able, 88%
Able, 70%
Flex Peak Participants Flex Peak Non-Participants A/C Cool Credit Participants A/C Cool Credit Non-Participants
Ability to participate if program also runs on Saturday
Reason unable to participate in program.Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Duration of events would be too long 17%10%18%13%29%36%
Maximum number of events per season would
be too many 7%15%14%14%23%19%
Length of season would be too long 2%5%6%4%7%6%
Maximum number of events per week would be
too many 17%10%23%23%33%35%
Not willing to take on the risk of shutting
down/reducing operations 22%10%24%11%
Unable to shut off/reduce operations due to
labor/staffing issues 13%15%11%9%
Customers/clients may be negatively impacted 20%20%
Concerned overall temperature in house would
become too uncomfotable 76%71%
Home during that time, don't want system
interrupted 28%40%
Other 2%15%4%24%14%24%
Top 3 impacts to ability to participate in
program. Total number of times ranked 1, 2 or
3.
Flex Peak
Participants
Flex Peak Non-
Participants
Peak Rewards
Participant
Peak Rewards
Non-
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit
Participants
A/C Cool
Credit Non-
Participants
Maximum number of events allowed per week 18 6 76 58 122 180
Maximum number of events allowed per season 9 1 39 28 93 136
Days of the week the program runs 13 5 25 33 93 121
Length of season 6 3 9 20 93 109
Event times 13 7 59 43 154 195
Incentive amount 10 5 57 44 188 215
Comfort 209 227
Other 3 3 5 11 58 74
What is your overall satisfaction with Idaho Power?
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Very satisfied 64%61%62%977
Somewhat satisfied 21%24%23%360
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11%11%11%179
Somewhat dissatisfied 3%2%3%40
Very dissatisfied 1%1%1%16
Total 1572
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Very motivated 38%33%35%543
Somewhat motivated 48%52%50%792
Neither motivated nor unmotivated 12%13%12%196
Somewhat unmotivated 2%2%2%27
Very unmotivated 1%1%1%13
Total 1571
Percentage
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Yes 90%91%91%1426
No 7%7%7%106
Don't know 4%2%2%38
Total 1570
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Save money 38%37%37%1276
Reduce waste 20%19%19%670
More comfortable home 12%113%13%437
Preserve the environment 19%20%19%668
Reduce fossil fuels usage 11%11%11%380
Other 1%1%1%30
Total 3461
Idaho Power provides excellent customer service
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 43%41%41%651
Somewhat agree 27%29%28%445
Neither agree nor disagree 24%27%26%416
Somewhat disagree 3%2%2%39
Strongly disagree 2%1%1%19
Total 1570
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Idaho Power provides service at a reasonable cost
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 30%29%29%462
Somewhat agree 40%38%39%609
Neither agree nor disagree 17%21%20%314
Somewhat disagree 9%8%8%131
Strongly disagree 5%3%4%56
Total 1572
2021 Idaho Power Home Energy Report Customer Surveys
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Idaho Power cares about its customers
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 35%33%34%532
Somewhat agree 33%33%33%515
Neither agree nor disagree 25%29%27%429
Somewhat disagree 4%4%4%63
Strongly disagree 3%2%2%32
Total 1571
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Idaho Power helps you understand how you're using energy
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 25%36%32%507
Somewhat agree 40%39%39%620
Neither agree nor disagree 29%18%21%335
Somewhat disagree 5%6%6%87
Strongly disagree 1%2%1%22
Total 1571
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Idaho Power provides helpful tools to help you save money
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 22%25%24%379
Somewhat agree 40%41%41%641
Neither agree nor disagree 30%26%27%431
Somewhat disagree 6%6%6%92
Strongly disagree 2%2%2%28
Total 1571
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 33%36%35%552
Somewhat agree 40%38%39%612
Neither agree nor disagree 24%22%22%350
Somewhat disagree 2%3%3%41
Strongly disagree 1%1%1%17
Total 1572
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Idaho Power helps manage energy usage
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 19%22%21%328
Somewhat agree 34%38%37%581
Neither agree nor disagree 38%31%33%522
Somewhat disagree 6%6%6%100
Strongly disagree 2%3%3%40
Total 1571
Idaho Power is a trusted resource for information on how to save energy
How much would you agree with the following statement?
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Percent Responses
Strongly agree 28%29%29%456
Somewhat agree 41%41%41%646
Neither agree nor disagree 24%23%24%373
Somewhat disagree 4%5%4%70
Strongly disagree 2%2%2%26
Total 1571
Answer Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 42%39%40%625
Somewhat agree 31%33%32%510
Neither agree nor disagree 24%25%25%389
Somewhat disagree 2%2%2%28
Strongly disagree 1%1%1%18
Total 1570
Answer Recipients Control Group Treatment Goup Total Percent Responses
Added insulation to your home 15%2%2%2%234
Avoided heating unused rooms 48%7%7%7%753
Changed appliances 28%4%4%4%448
Changed windows or doors 18%3%2%2%276
Checked air ducts for leaks 21%3%3%3%329
Installed a high efficiency showerhead 27%4%4%4%428
Purchased LEDs to install in your home 82%12%11%11%1288
Reduced shower time 33%4%5%5%517
Set your thermostat to a lower or higher temperature 77%11%11%11%1208
Turned off lights 93%13%13%13%1458
Unplugged electrical devices 42%6%6%6%660
Used a clothesline to dry clothing 20%3%3%3%315
Washed clothes in cold water 63%9%9%9%989
Washed only full loads of dishes 75%11%11%11%1188
Washed only full loads of laundry 72%10%10%10%1129
Total 11220
Do you recall receiving a Home Energy Report?
Answer Total Percent Responses
Yes 82%877
No 11%122
Don't know 7%70
Total 1069
Answer Total Percent Responses
All or most of them 76%664
Some of them 21%185
Little to none of them 3%26
Don't know 0%2
Total 877
Have used any of the following energy-savings actions at residence in the last 12 months. (Check all that apply)
Idaho Power helps save with energy-saving recommendations
Viewing hourly/daily intervals of usage on Idaho Power's website is useful
How thoroughly did you, or someone in your home, read the Reports you received?
How much would you agree with the following statement?
How much do you agree with the following statement?
Answer Total Percent Responses
Strongly agree 53%454
Somewhat agree 39%329
Neither agree nor disagree 5%44
Somewhat disagree 2%17
Strongly disagree 1%5
Total 849
Total Per Category
Agree 92%
Neither Agree/Disagree 5%
Disagree 3%
How much do you agree with the following statement?
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 33%278
Somewhat agree 40%342
Neither agree nor disagree 13%113
Somewhat disagree 8%72
Strongly disagree 5%43
Total
848
Per Category
Agree 73%
Neither Agree/Disagree 13%
Disagree 14%
How much do you agree with the following statement?
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 31%266
Somewhat agree 40%335
Neither agree nor disagree 21%177
Somewhat disagree 6%48
Strongly disagree 3%22
Total 848
Per Category
Agree 71%
Neither Agree/Disagree 21%
Disagree 8%
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 94%797
No 6%51
Total 848
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 89%756
No 11%93
Total 849
The breakdown of your electricity use providing insights into how much your electricity use goes towards the different major appliance
The information presented in your Home Energy Report was easy to understand
The information presented in your Home Energy Report seemed accurate
The recommendations and tips on how to conserve were helpful
Do you recall seeing each of the following features of the Home Energy Report?
The comparison of your electricity use in relationship to homes of similar type and size in your area
Do you recall seeing each of the following features of the Home Energy Report?
Saving tips including personalized savings tips just for you
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 69%587
No 31%258
Total 845
Did you find the following useful?
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 71%563
No 29%233
Total 796
Did you find the following useful?
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 83%630
No 17%125
Total 755
Did you find the following useful?
Saving tips including personalized savings tips just for you
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 78%459
No 22%126
Total 585
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 58%492
No 42%351
Total 843
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 28%239
Somewhat agree 34%290
Neither agree nor disagree 31%262
Somewhat disagree 3%27
Strongly disagree 4%31
Total 849
Answer Percent Responses
Monthly 23%194
Bi-monthly 15%127
Quarterly 43%361
Twice a year 14%121
Other (please specify)4%36
Total 839
Do you recall seeing each of the following features of the Home Energy Report?
The comparison of your electricity use in relationship to homes of similar type and size in your area
The breakdown of your electricity use providing insights into how much your electricity use goes towards the different major appliance
categories in your home
How much would you agree that Idaho Power's Home Energy Reports helped you understand your energy usage during the COVID-19
Have you acted on any of the information and suggestions that were included in the report to save money and electricity?
How frequently do you recall receiving your Home Energy Report?
Answer Percent Responses
Much better 8%65
Somewhat better 29%245
Stayed the same 60%509
Somewhat worse 3%24
Much worse 0%2
Total 845
How would you prefer to receive the report?
Answer Percent Responses
By paper 47%394
By email 47%399
Prefer not to receive the report 6%51
Total 844
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 22%11
No 78%40
51
Which of the following best describes your age?
Answer Percent Responses
18-24 0%1
25-34 6%97
35-44 17%267
45-54 16%255
55-64 23%365
65-74 25%391
75 or older 9%146
Prefer not to answer 3%47
Total 1569
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Answer Percent Responses
Some high school or less 0%5
Graduated high school or GED 8%122
Some college or technical school 24%377
Associate Degree 11%179
Bachelor's Degree (4 year)26%408
Some graduate school 6%91
Graduate Degree 19%302
Prefer not to answer 5%82
Total 1566
Answer Percent Responses
25%394
54%846
21%325
Total 1565
Which of the following would best describe the general area where your primary residence as an Idaho Power customer is located:
Are you aware that you can opt-out of the Home Energy Reports?
How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since receiving the Home Energy Reports? Would you say it is...
surrounding towns)
Job Number.
Answered: 124
Answer Percentage Responses
Metro Community Services 4%5
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 0%0
El Ada Community Action Partnership 69%85
South Central Community Action Partnership 9%11
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 18%22
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon 0%0
Community in Action 1%1
Answered 124
Answer Percent ResponsesAgency/Contractor flyer 18%21
Idaho Power employee 7%8
Idaho Power web site 16%18
Friend or relative 37%43
Letter in mail 3%4
Other (Please specify)18%21
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
Reduce utility bills 46%89
Improve comfort of home 21%41
Furnace concerns 20%39
Water heater concerns 3%6
Improve insulation 8%16
Other (please specify)1%2
Answered 193
Answer Percent Responses
Completely 96%110
Somewhat 3%3
Not at all 1%1
Answered 114
Agency/Contractor Name:
How did you learn about the weatherization program?
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well was
the equipment's operation explained to you?
2021 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers Program Survey
Answer Percent Responses
How air leaks affect energy usage 22%72
How insulation affects energy usage 18%60
How to program the new thermostat 12%41
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 9%31
How to use energy wisely 21%70
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 16%54
Other (Please specify)1%2
Answered 330
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 90%104
Somewhat likely 10%11
Not very likely 0%0
Not likely at all 0%0
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
All of it 85%89
Some of it 15%16
None of it 0%0
Answered 105
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 75%76
Somewhat likely 23%23
Somewhat unlikely 2%2
Very unlikely 1%1
Answered 102
Answer Percent Responses
Washing full loads of clothes 17%66
Washing full loads of dishes 12%45
Turning off lights when not in use 20%77
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 13%50
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 17%65
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 18%69
Other (please specify)2%6
Answered 378
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization
process? (Check all that apply)
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely are
you to change your habits to save energy?
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
household?
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?
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy?
(check all that apply)
Answer Percent Responses
Significantly 94%108
Somewhat 6%7
Very little 0%0
Not at all 0%0
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
Excellent 99%114
Good 1%1
Fair 0%0
Poor 0%0
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
Excellent 98%114
Good 2%2
Fair 0%0
Poor 0%0
Answered 116
Answer Percent Responses
Excellent 96%110
Good 4%5
Fair 0%0
Poor 0%0
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
Excellent 97%111
Good 3%4
Fair 0%0
Poor 0%0
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 84%96
No 16%18
Answered 114
Rate the Agency/Contractor on the following based on your interactions with them:
Courteousness
Professionalism
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 98%114
Somewhat satisfied 1%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 0%0
Very dissatisfied 1%1
Answered 116
Answer Percent Responses
Improved 94%109
Stayed the same 6%7
Decreased 0%0
Answered 116
Answer Percent Responses
0 26%31
1 30%35
2 21%25
3 11%13
4 5%6
5 4%5
6 or more 3%3
Answered 118
Answer Percent Responses
Less than 1 year 0%0
1-10 years 28%32
11-25 years 38%44
26 years or more 34%39
Answered 115
Answer Percent Responses
Under 25 3%3
25-34 11%13
35-44 21%25
45-54 18%21
55-64 21%25
65-74 15%18
75 or older 11%13
Answered 118
Answer Percent Responses
Less than High School 11%13
High School graduate or GED 52%61
Some College or Technical School 25%30
Associate Degree 4%5
8%9
Answered 118
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees)
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
How many people, beside yourself, live in your home year-round?
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answer Percent Responses
Idaho Power employee 12.00%15
Contractor 53.60%67
Equipment supplier 14.40%18
Other business owner 7.20%9
Other (please specify)12.80%5
Total 125
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 88.00%110
Somewhat satisfied 11.20%14
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0.80%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 125
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 92.00%115
Somewhat satisfied 6.40%8
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0.80%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.80%1
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 125
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 92.74%115
Somewhat satisfied 5.65%7
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0.81%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.81%1
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 124
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 90.32%112
Somewhat Likely 8.06%10
Neither likely nor unlikely 0.81%1
Somewhat unlikely 0.81%1
Very unlikely 0.00%0
Total 124
2021 Retrofits Survey Results
How did you learn about the Retrofits program?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Idaho Power Retrofits incentive program?
How satisfied are you with the contractor that you hired to install the equipment?
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
How likely are you to recommend the contractor who installed you equipment to other business owners?
Page 1 of 2
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 96.67%116
Somewhat Likely 3.33%4
Neither likely nor unlikely 0.00%0
Somewhat unlikely 0.00%0
Very unlikely 0.00%0
Total 120
How likely are you to recommend Idaho Powers Retrofits program to other business owners?
Page 2 of 2
2021 SBDI Program Customer Satisfaction Survey Responses

Q7 Response Breakout
Response Number of Responses
Lighting Upgrade 37
Program was free 35
No response 21
Bill savings 15
Energy Savings 15
Good opportunity for my business (No further
reasoning provided)
7
Relationship with EA 6
Building landlord mentioned program to me 1

Q8 Response Breakout
Response Number of Responses
Offer program to larger customers 9
No improvement suggestions 7
Offer equipment options that extend past lighting

1
Make program available to residential customers 1
Calling is a better option for outreach than mailer

1
Allow vacant spaces to participate

1
You should allow contractors to do light
construction work to install lighting that live in
ceiling panels
1
Provide more clarity about scheduling process as
thought Idaho Power would call me directly
1

Q9 Response Breakout
Response Number of Responses
Outdoor sign lighting 3
More exterior lighting options 3
Customized outdoor sensors

1
Potato cellar lighting 1
Weather stripping 1
Install type B or C tubes only and do not replace
ballasts

1
Increase eligibility criteria

1
Heating 1
Heating and cooling equipment

1

Answer Responses Percent
Email from Idaho Power 314 54.04%
Friend or relative 122 21.00%
Neighbor 35 6.02%
Utility employee 13 2.24%
Other (please specify)97 16.70%
Answered 581
Answer Responses Percent
Tree was free 60 10.54%
Home too warm in the summer 95 16.70%
Reduce energy bill 119 20.91%
Improve landscape/property value 67 11.78%
Wanted a tree 122 21.44%
Help the environment 94 16.52%
Other (please specify)12 2.11%
Answered 569
Answer Responses Percent
Lack of knowledge 100 17.57%
Cost 267 46.92%
Time 71 12.48%
Other (please specify)131 23.02%
Total 569 Answered 569
Answer Responses Percent
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement store 185 32.51%
Nursery/garden store 360 63.27%
Other (please specify)24 4.22%
Answered 569
Answer Responses Percent
10 minutes or less 320 57.76%
11-20 minutes 176 31.77%
21-30 minutes 44 7.94%
31 minutes or more 14 2.53%
Answered 554
Where would you typically purchase a new tree?(Mark one)
How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
2021 Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Survey
How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project (Check all that apply)
What was the primary reason you participated in the program?(Mark one)
What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project?(Mark one)
Answer Responses Percent
Very easy 383 68.39%
Somewhat easy 167 29.82%
Somewhat difficult 9 1.61%
Very difficult 1 0.18%
Answered 560
Answer Responses Percent
One 84 14.76%
Two 485 85.24%
Answered 569
Received One Tree
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Responses Percent
Same day as the tree arrival 12 14.29%
1-3 days after the tree arrival 37 44.05%
4-7 days after the tree arrival 13 15.48%
More than 1 week after the tree arrival 10 11.90%
Did not plant the tree 12 14.29%
Answered 84
Answer Responses Percent
North 5 6.94%
South 10 13.89%
Northeast 5 6.94%
Southwest 12 16.67%
East 7 9.72%
West 21 29.17%
Southeast 7 9.72%
Northwest 5 6.94%
Answered 72
Answer Responses Percent
20 feet or less 31 43.06%
21-40 feet 33 45.83%
41-60 feet 7 9.72%
More than 60 feet 1 1.39%
Answered 72
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
How many trees did you receive from the Shade Tree Project?
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Receieved Two Trees
How many shade trees did you plant?
Answer Responses Percent
One 15 3.09%
Two 383 78.97%
Did not plant the trees 87 17.94%
Answered 485
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Responses Percent
Same day as the tree arrival 2 13.33%
1-3 days after the tree arrival 9 60.00%
4-7 days after the tree arrival 0 0.00%
More than 1 week after the tree arrival 4 26.67%
Answered 15
Receieved Two Trees, Planted One
Answer Responses Percent
North 1 6.67%
South 1 6.67%
Northeast 0 0.00%
Southwest 2 13.33%
East 1 6.67%
West 7 46.67%
Southeast 2 13.33%
Northwest 1 6.67%
Answered 15
Answer Responses Percent
20 feet or less 6 40.00%
21-40 feet 8 53.33%
41-60 feet 1 6.67%
More than 60 feet 0 0.00%
Answered 15
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
When did you plant your shade tree?
First Tree
Answer Responses Percent
Same day as the tree arrival 49 12.79%
1-3 days after the tree arrival 222 57.96%
4-7 days after the tree arrival 67 17.49%
More than 1 week after the tree arrival 45 11.75%
Answered 383
Second Tree
Answer Responses Percent
Same day as the tree arrival 47 12.27%
1-3 days after the tree arrival 220 57.44%
4-7 days after the tree arrival 69 18.02%
More than 1 week after the tree arrival 47 12.27%
Answered 383
First Tree
Answer Responses Percent
North 38 9.92%
South 61 15.93%
Northeast 21 5.48%
Southwest 52 13.58%
East 42 10.97%
West 131 34.20%
Southeast 15 3.92%
Northwest 23 6.01%
Answered 383
Second Tree
Answer Responses Percent
North 27 7.05%
South 49 12.79%
Northeast 19 4.96%
Southwest 57 14.88%
East 52 13.58%
West 123 32.11%
Southeast 23 6.01%
Northwest 33 8.62%
Answered 383
Receieved Two Trees, planted Two Trees
First Tree
Answer Responses Percent
20 feet or less 122 31.85%
21-40 feet 190 49.61%
41-60 feet 53 13.84%
More than 60 feet 18 4.70%
Answered 383
Second Tree
Answer Responses Percent
20 feet or less 118 30.81%
21-40 feet 185 48.30%
41-60 feet 57 14.88%
More than 60 feet 23 6.01%
Answered 383
Answer Responses Percent
Changed my mind 1 0.85%
Did not like the tree 6 5.08%
Did not have time 10 8.47%
Other (please specify)101 85.59%
Answered 118
Answer Responses Percent
Very satisfied 406 71.35%
Somewhat satisfied 129 22.67%
Somewhat dissatisfied 19 3.34%
Very dissatisfied 15 2.64%
Answered 569
Answer Responses Percent
Planting depth 259 46.17%
Circling roots 76 13.55%
Staking 39 6.95%
Watering 146 26.02%
Other (please specify)41 7.31%
Answered 561
Received One or Two Trees - Did Not Plant
Why did you not plant your tree(s)? (Check all that apply)
How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your shade tree?
What information did you find most valuable?
Answer Responses Percent
Strongly agree 365 64.37%
Somewhat agree 127 22.40%
Somewhat disagree 32 5.64%
Strongly disagree 43 7.58%
Answered 567
Answer Responses Percent
Strongly agree 305 54.27%
Somewhat agree 139 24.73%
Somewhat disagree 61 10.85%
Strongly disagree 57 10.14%
Answered 562
Answer Responses Percent
Strongly agree 374 79.91%
Somewhat agree 77 16.45%
Somewhat disagree 12 2.56%
Strongly disagree 5 1.07%
Answered 468
Answer Responses Percent
Strongly agree 428 76.02%
Somewhat agree 73 12.97%
Somewhat disagree 35 6.22%
Strongly disagree 27 4.80%
Answered 563
Answer Responses Percent
Strongly agree 372 65.84%
Somewhat agree 120 21.24%
Somewhat disagree 42 7.43%
Strongly disagree 31 5.49%
Answered 565
I would recommend the program to a friend or relative
I am satisfied with my overall experience
I am satisfied with Shade Tree Project delivery method
I am satisfied with the tree(s) I received from the Shade Tree Project
It was easy to plant my shade tree(s)
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 215
EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification of Idaho Power Company PY2021 A/C Cool Credit Program
Residential ADM Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Idaho Power Company Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program—Custom Projects 2020 Program Year
Impact and Process Evaluation Results
Commercial,
Industrial
Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
Process Evaluation
Idaho Power Company Flex Peak Program 2021 Impact
Evaluation Results
Commercial,
Industrial
Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
2021 Impact Evaluation Results
Irrigation Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Idaho Power Company Small Business Direct Install
Program 2020 Process Evaluation Results
Commercial,
Industrial
Tetra Tech Idaho Power Process Evaluation
Idaho Power Home Energy Reports Process Evaluation Residential DNV Idaho Power Process Evaluation
Impact & Process Evaluation of Idaho Power Company
PY2020 Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Residential ADM Idaho Power Impact and
Process Evaluation

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 216 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916-363-8383
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
208-388-2200

SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evaluation, Measurement and
Verification of Idaho Power
Company PY2021
A/C Cool Credit Program

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification of Idaho Power Company PY2021 A/C Cool Credit Program ... i
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Impact Evaluation Results ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 1-2
2. Program Overview ............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Glossary of Terminology ......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Program Description ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Impact Evaluation Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Demand Response Events ...................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Expected Demand Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
3. Impact Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Database Review .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Data Requirements and Data Preparation ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Summary of Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4 Baseline Day and Proxy Day Development ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.5 Classification of Non-Contributing Households ...................................................................................... 3-5
3.6 Models .................................................................................................................................................... 3-8
4. Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................... 4-10
4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 4-22
5. Appendix: Regression Results ............................................................................................................ 24

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Impact Evaluation Results ................................................... 1-1
Table 1-2: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Impact Results by Event Date .............................................. 1-1
Table 2-1: Demand Response Events in 2021 ............................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2-2: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Expected Demand Reductions............................................. 2-1
Table 3-1: Event Day Weather Information ............................................................................................... 3-3
Table 4-1: Model Performance Comparison ............................................................................................ 4-11
Table 4-2: Non-Contributing Household Rate.......................................................................................... 4-19
Table 4-3: Verified A/C Cool Credit Program Demand Impacts ............................................................... 4-21
Table 4-4: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Impact Results by Event Date ............................................ 4-21
Table 4-5: Summary of kW Impact by Model .......................................................................................... 4-22
Table 5-1: kW Per Household Demand Reductions by Model and Calculation Method ............................ 24
Table 5-2: 3-of-10 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour ..................................... 25
Table 5-3: 3-of-5 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour ....................................... 26
Table 5-4: Mixed Model Load Reductions by Event and Hour.................................................................... 27
Table 5-5: 3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour ............................ 28
Table 5-6: 3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour .............................. 29
Table 5-7: Regression Load Reductions by Event and Hour ....................................................................... 30

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Example of Site-Level Load Shapes During Event Hours ......................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2: Example of Site-Level CSUM Slope Changes During Event Hours ........................................... 3-7
Figure 4-1: Regression Proxy Day Performance ....................................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-2: Mixed Model Proxy Day Performance ................................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-3: 3-of-10 Additive CBL Proxy Day Performance ....................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-4: 3-of-5 Additive CBL Proxy Day Performance ......................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-5: 3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL Proxy Day Performance .............................................................. 4-14
Figure 4-6: 3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL Proxy Day Performance ................................................................ 4-14
Figure 4-7: Regression Baseline Performance ......................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-8: Mixed Model Baseline Performance ..................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-9: 3-of-10 Additive CBL Baseline Performance .......................................................................... 4-17
Figure 4-10: 3-of-5 Additive CBL Baseline Performance .......................................................................... 4-17
Figure 4-11: 3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL Baseline Performance ............................................................... 4-18
Figure 4-12: 3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL Baseline Performance ................................................................. 4-18
Figure 4-13: Event Day CDD and Demand Reductions Regression .......................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-14: Event Time Temperature (F) and Demand Reductions Regression ..................................... 4-20
Figure 4-15: Event Day CDD and Baseline kW/household Regression .................................................... 4-21

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 1-1
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the 2021 program year (PY2021) A/C Cool Credit Residential Demand
Response (ACCC) Program Impact Evaluation for Idaho Power Company (IPC). The evaluation was
administered by ADM Associates, Inc. (herein referred to as “ADM” or as the “Evaluators”).
1.1 Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact evaluation for IPC’s A/C Cool Credit Program during PY2021. The
A/C Cool Credit Program’s demand reduction amounted to 18.35 kW average over all hours at the meter
with an 82.5% realization rate. The Evaluators summarize the program verified demand reductions in
Table 1-1 below.
Table 1-1: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Impact Evaluation Results
Number of
Participants
Expected
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Total
Expected
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
Verified
Demand
Reductions
(Average kW
per Household)
Verified
Average
Total
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
Realization
Rate
20,995 1.06 22,254.70 0.87 18,351.20 82%

Verified program demand reductions by event are summarized in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Impact Results by Event Date
Event Date
Verified
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Verified Total
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
6/28/2021 0.96 20,051.30
7/12/2021 0.77 16,152.68
7/26/2021 0.87 18,255.18
7/27/2021 0.83 17,488.65
7/28/2021 0.74 15,437.98
7/29/2021 0.92 19,305.29
7/30/2021 1.06 22,245.36
8/4/2021 0.81 17,087.64
8/12/2021 0.91 19,136.72

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 1-2
1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators’ conclusions and recommendations for the A/C Cool Credit
Program evaluation.
1.2.1 Conclusions
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding IPC’s A/C Cool Credit Program:
◼ Utilizing multiple baseline models and assigning the best fitting baseline model on a customer-
specific basis resulted in lower bias and smaller errors on proxy event days.
◼ The current method of estimating program demand reductions utilizing a 3-of-10 Customer
Baseline (CBL) approach did not perform as well as other baseline approaches in terms of
predicting usage on proxy event days (higher bias and larger errors).
◼ Regression modeling outperformed CBL modeling in terms of predicting baseline usage on proxy
days.
◼ Higher demand reductions are positively correlated with higher Cooling Degree Days (CDD).
◼ Overall rates for non-responding devices/opt-out customers were within the normal ranges
observed for residential demand response programs.
1.2.2 Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding IPC’s A/C Cool Credit Program:
◼ Utilize a mixed model or regression model to estimate demand reductions for the programs.
CBLs on their own may systematically overestimate baseline usage and demand reductions for
the program.
◼ Utilize proxy event days to estimate bias and error when determining which model to select for
estimating baseline usage.
◼ As shown in Section 4.1.3, a strong positive correlation exists between CDD and baseline usage,
and between CDD and program demand reductions. The Evaluators recommend calling demand
response events on days with the highest forecasted CDD to maximize program demand
reductions. If numerous events are called on days with lower CDD, and therefore lower
expected demand reductions, the Evaluators recommend calculating demand reductions by
using average demand reductions from the maximum event (or average demand reductions
from the top 3 days with the highest CDD) to avoid penalizing the program or incentivizing
calling fewer demand response events.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 2-1
2. Program Overview
This section of the report provides a glossary of terminology used throughout the report, a description
of the A/C Cool Credit Program, and a summary of the impact evaluation objectives, PY2021 event
activities, and expected demand reductions from the program.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators have provided a glossary of
terms to follow:
◼ Expected Demand Reductions – Calculated demand reductions used for program and portfolio
planning purposes.
◼ Verified Demand Reductions – Demand reduction estimates calculated after the impact
evaluation performed by the Evaluators.
◼ Realization Rate – The ratio of Verified Savings to Expected Savings.
◼ Net Demand Reductions – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-
related actions taken by participants in energy efficiency program, with adjustments to remove
savings due to free ridership. For the ACCC program, there is no free ridership and Net Demand
Reductions are equal to Verified Demand Reductions.
◼ Demand Response (DR) Events – Specifically-designated hours during which customers reduce
their energy consumption. In the Residential sector, this is often conducted through switches
placed on customer A/C equipment to reduce load during peak energy consumption hours.
◼ Customer Baselines (CBLs) – A method of calculating baseline usage for demand response
programs that involves taking average usage from days prior to the demand response event date,
often with an adjustment factor that accounts for actual usage on the event day.
◼ Baseline Days – Days that are used when calculating CBLs or other baseline loads for demand
response programs. They typically are non-event, non-holiday weekdays that have similar load or
weather characteristics as demand response event days.
◼ Proxy Event Days – Often referred to as “test” days, these are baseline days that are used to test
the accuracy baseline predictions.
◼ Non-responding Devices (NRDs) – Devices that are not responding to the demand response event
curtailment signal due to a disconnected switch, defective device, or other issue.
◼ Opt-Out Customers – Customers that opt-out of a demand response event by notifying the
demand response program that they do not wish to participate in the demand response event.
2.2 Program Description
The ACCC program is a voluntary, dispatchable demand response (DR) program for residential customers
in Idaho and Oregon. The ACCC program curtails energy use during peak demand periods via a direct
load control device installed on the A/C unit. Eligible customers are provided $5 monthly incentive for
three months during the air conditioning season to participate in curtailment events.
Customers’ A/C units are controlled using switches that communicate by powerline carrier (PLC) using
the same system utilized by IPC’s advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). Using communication

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 2-2
hardware and software, IPC cycles participants’ central air conditioning (A/C) units or heat pumps via a
direct load control device installed on the A/C unit, called a switch. The switch is installed on each
participating customer’s A/C unit, which allows IPC to control the unit during a cycling event. Cycling
events are chosen by IPC to reduce system capacity needs during times when summer peak load is high.
The direct load control switch is a small, weatherized plastic box attached to either the exterior of a
participant’s house or A/C unit. The equipment is installed by a certified field technician.
The switches are called to cycle participating customers’ A/C units during “event days.” The program
event day guidelines are as follows:
◼ June 15 through August 15 (excluding weekends and July 4);
◼ Up to four hours per day;
◼ A maximum of 60 hours per season; and
◼ At least three events per season.
Each event day has a defined cycling rate. The cycling rate is the percentage of an hour the A/C unit will
be turned off by the switch. For example, with a 50% cycling rate, the switch will cycle the A/C unit off
for about 30 (nonconsecutive) minutes of each hour during the event. IPC defines the cycling rate for
each event day and tracks the communication levels for each unit to validate whether the control signal
reaches the switch. For the 2021 season, IPC cycled participants’ A/C units at 55%.
In 2021 approximately 22,500 customers participated with a peak demand reduction calculated at 19.4
MW.
2.3 Impact Evaluation Objectives
The primary objective of the impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net demand impacts.
Our activities during the evaluation estimate and verify demand impacts and identify whether the
program is meeting its goals. These activities are aimed to provide guidance for continuous program
improvement. The Evaluators summarize the key impact evaluation objectives:
◼ Calculate demand impacts attributable to the 2021 summer program using IPC’s current
methodology;
◼ Report findings and observations, and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness
of future demand response calculations, and ensure the accurate, transparent reporting of
program impacts;
◼ Determine best practice baseline calculations for determining demand reduction, and make
recommendations; and,
◼ Calculate demand impacts attributable to the 2021 summer program with any changes in
calculation methodology if any.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 2-3
2.4 Demand Response Events
Nine demand response events were called in 2021 between the months of June through August, as
displayed in Table 2-1. Demand response events (DR events) were called between the hours of 1600 and
1900 MDT for eight of the DR events and then between 1700 and 2000 MDT for the July 27 DR event.

Table 2-1: Demand Response Events in 2021
June
S M T W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
July
S M T W Th F Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
August
S M T W Th F Sa
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-1

2.5 Expected Demand Impacts
IPC provided the expected demand impacts for the ACCC Program during PY2021. The Evaluators
summarize the expected demand impacts due to the program in Table 2-2 below. The expected
reduction is for an event where the temperature reaches 101° F with 55% cycling.
Table 2-2: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Expected Demand Reductions
Program
Year
Expected
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Number of
Households
Total Expected
Demand
Reductions
2021 1.10 20,955 23,050.50

3. Impact Evaluation Methodology
This section presents our overall approach to accomplishing the impact evaluation of IPC’s ACCC
Program. The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for
the program:
◼ A Calculated approach with AMI meter data involves estimating demand impacts by applying
several models to measured participant energy consumption AMI meter data. This modeling
effort included consumption data from participant customers. This approach does not require on-
site data collection for model calibration.
The sections following describe in further detail the Evaluators’ activities towards conducting the impact
evaluation, followed by the resulting verified impact estimates.
3.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the delivered tracking database to ensure that
the ACCC Program documentation conform to industry standards and adequately tracks key data
required for evaluation.
3.2 Data Requirements and Data Preparation
The Evaluators summarize the data required and collected to conduct this impact evaluation for the
ACCC Program:
◼ ACCC Program tracking data for PY2021;
◼ Hourly AMI meter data for all PY2021 participating customers covering the demand response
season (June 2021 – August 2021); and,
◼ The full schedule of ACCC Program events, including the time, date, and duration of each event.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-2
The Evaluators reviewed the data tracking systems associated with the program to ensure that the data
provides sufficient information to calculate demand impacts.
3.2.1 Weather Data
In addition to the data provided by IPC and summarized above, the Evaluators collected hourly historical
weather data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to estimate the
impact of weather on usage. This weather data was collected from two weather stations: the Boise
Airport and the Twin Falls Airport. This data was then assigned to each customer based on the
customer’s account area name, provided by IPC and determined by zip code. Approximately 86% of
participants are within the Boise account area.
Using the historical weather data, the Evaluators calculated Heating Degree Hours (HDH) and Cooling
Degree Hours (CDH) for use in the regression analysis. HDHs are calculated as temperature values under
the heating setpoint (65°F), while CDHs are calculated as temperature values over the cooling setpoint
(72°F). The setpoint values for HDHs and CDHs were determined by running regressions with multiple
setpoints from 65°F through 75°F. The Evaluators chose the setpoint combination with the highest
adjusted R-squared value, demonstrating the best fit for the data.
The Evaluators summarize the weather observed during each event day in Table 3-1 Cooling Degree
Days (CDD) is calculated by summing CDH for all hours of the day. Correlations between CDD and
demand reductions were made because CDD reflects the build-up of heat a home and is more predictive
of demand reductions. CDH during event hours is not as predictive since it does reflect the average heat
build-up in the home.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-3
Table 3-1: Event Day Weather Information
Account
Area Event Date Max
Temperature (F)
Average
Temperature (F) CDD
Boise 6/28/2021 102.0 88.8 16.8
Boise 7/12/2021 102.0 83.5 12.2
Boise 7/26/2021 100.0 84.8 12.9
Boise 7/27/2021 100.0 84.5 12.5
Boise 7/28/2021 97.0 82.5 10.6
Boise 7/29/2021 98.1 85.0 13.1
Boise 7/30/2021 99.0 88.1 16.1
Boise 8/4/2021 104.0 86.0 14.4
Boise 8/12/2021 100.0 83.8 12.3
POC/TWIN 6/28/2021 93.0 77.7 7.4
POC/TWIN 7/12/2021 97.0 81.9 10.2
POC/TWIN 7/26/2021 100.0 82.2 10.9
POC/TWIN 7/27/2021 91.9 82.2 10.2
POC/TWIN 7/28/2021 91.9 81.5 9.5
POC/TWIN 7/29/2021 93.0 79.6 8.5
POC/TWIN 7/30/2021 90.0 77.2 6.0
POC/TWIN 8/4/2021 95.0 78.2 8.8
POC/TWIN 8/12/2021 93.0 80.0 8.4

3.2.2 Data Preparation
The following steps were taken to prepare the AMI hourly meter data:
1. Removed participants not enrolled in all DR events (1.75% of participants).
2. Gathered AMI hourly meter data for homes that participated in the program.
3. Removed participants missing AMI hourly meter data (1 participant dropped).
4. Removed participants with average usage of zero for the entirely of the DR season (<1% of
participants).
5. Restricted to hourly data during the summer: June 1 – September 30 (1 participant dropped).
This restriction is made to ensure the regression and CBL models have enough data to calculate
appropriate baselines. Dates outside the summer period are further from the DR season (June
15 – August 15) and provide less useful information for the models, while restricting to just the
DR season would not provide enough information to calculate baselines for certain models (e.g.
CBLs).
6. Removed participants with any gaps in AMI meter data during DR season (did not occur after
above restrictions).
7. Obtained weather data from Boise and Twin Falls NOAA weather stations. Categorized
participants by account area name to Boise or Twin Falls/Pocatello area and assigned Boise
weather station to Boise participants and Twin Falls weather station to Twin Falls/Pocatello
participants.
8. Computed Heating Degree Hours (HDH) and Cooling Degree Hours (CDH) for a range of
setpoints. The Evaluators assigned a setpoint of 65°F for HDH and 72°F for CDH. The Evaluators

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-4
tested and selected the optimal temperature base for HDDs and CDDs based on model R-
squared values.
3.3 Summary of Methodology
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
program.
The Evaluators tested a variety of models to address demand reductions associated with the ACCC
program. Four different Customer Baseline models (CBLs) were built along with a regression model and
a mixed model approach which combined CBLs with regressions. CBL models are defined in Section
3.6.2.
The Evaluators determined that a mixed-model approach resulted in the lowest bias and error for the
demand reductions estimates. The mixed model approach assigns a model to each customer that
minimizes the error for that customer on proxy event days. Customers were assigned either a regression
model or one of four CBL models. Proxy days were defined as the top four non-event, non-holiday, non-
weekend days with the highest loads across all summer months.
The Evaluators estimated the demand reductions by kW/household, which corresponds to average
observed demand reductions for each device location or household. The number of units per household
was not provided to the Evaluators and therefore a kW/unit estimate was not obtained for the program.
Prior to running the model, the Evaluators removed devices that failed to meet the following criteria:
◼ Missing customer zip codes (due to inability to map to correct weather data); did not occur for
any customers;
◼ Gaps in customer’s AMI data (i.e. missing 24 observations per day); did not occur for any
customers; and
◼ Customers with an average usage value of zero during the entire DR season (142 customers).
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the activities followed to conduct each of the above
analysis.
3.4 Baseline Day and Proxy Day Development
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s methodology for selecting baseline days and proxy days
for use in the impact analysis.
3.4.1 Baseline Days
The Evaluators developed and utilized baseline days for use in the regression model. Baseline days
provide an indication of typical demand usage for each customer on days that are similar to the demand
response event days in terms of weather and load during peak hours. The Evaluators use baseline days
as a counterfactual, i.e., the demand we would have expected from the customer had the demand
reduction event not occurred. The Evaluators defined baseline days as any day that meets the following
criteria:

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-5
◼ Is a weekday
◼ Is a non-holiday day (10 federal yearly holidays)
◼ Is a non-event day
◼ Displays a maximum temperature of greater than or equal to 95°F during normal curtailment
hours (1600 to 2000)
The Evaluators used the defined baseline days in the regression analysis, further discussed in Section
3.4.
3.4.2 Proxy Days
Once the baseline days were chosen, the Evaluators were able to then choose proxy days. Proxy days
were chosen from the previously defined baseline days. The Evaluators defined proxy days as the top
four non-event, non-holiday, non-weekend days with the highest loads across all summer months.
The Evaluators used these defined proxy days to determine the ability of the regression and CBL models
to predict actual usage for each customer. The results of the proxy day predictions are presented in
Section 4.1.1.
3.5 Classification of Non-Contributing Households
The Evaluators identified non-contributing households to assess its impact on demand reductions.
Example reasons why a household may be a non-contributor includes:
◼ Non-responding devices (NRD) are devices that not responsive to the curtailment signal.
◼ Opt-outs are customer who opt-out of a DR event.
◼ Customers that are not running their AC (i.e. they away on vacation or at work during the event).

A device is considered a “non-responding device” (NRD) if it is not responsive to the curtailment signal.
This would indicate that the switch communications were not working.
Switch communications may be interrupted for a variety of reasons: the A/C unit may not be powered
on, the switch may become disconnected or defective, or the participant’s household wiring may
prevent communication. In some cases, it may be difficult for utilities to determine the reason the
switch is not communicating.
Opt-outs are different than non-responding devices, though the resulting observations are similar. Opt-
outs occur when a customer chooses not to participate in the curtailment event. In most cases, when a
customer chooses to opt-out, the customer is declining to participate in all subsequent events, rather
than a single event. Opt-outs are similar to non-responding devices in that AMI meter data for the
household displays no demand reductions during the curtailment event. However, opt-outs can be
categorized as opt-outs using customer communication records, or program tracking of opt-out
customers.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-6
Customers who are not running their AC unit during the DR event will have a load shape similar to NRD
and opt-out customers and appear to not have a demand reduction. For instance, the customer may be
on vacation, away at work, or have an AC unit problem.
The Evaluators attempted to quantify a separate opt-out rate for the program; however, information on
customer opt-outs was not available for the program. As such, the Evaluators calculated a rate that
includes all non-contributing households.
The Evaluators identified non-contributing households using a combination of three algorithms:
1. A cumulative sum (CSUM) change in slope analysis
2. A linear 10% decrease in load detection
3. A snapback analysis
When a DR event is called, each device is sent curtailment instructions that result in a significant load
drop over the duration of the event. This drop is illustrated in Figure 3-1, which provides an example
event and an example of a typical or “baseline” usage curve.
Figure 3-1: Example of Site-Level Load Shapes During Event Hours

The Evaluators define the methodology applied for each algorithm in the following sections.
3.5.1 CSUM Analysis
The CSUM smoothing technique is a rolling sum defined as:
𝑥=(𝑎,𝑏,𝑐,…,𝑧) 𝐶𝑆𝑈𝑀(𝑥)=(𝑎,𝑎+𝑏,𝑎+𝑏+𝑐,...,𝑎+...+𝑧)
Where,
𝑥 = a vector of kWh measures taken at increasing one-hour intervals during the event day

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-7
A smoothed, increasing curve is created by taking the CSUM of each treatment site during the demand
response period (Figure 3-2).
Figure 3-2: Example of Site-Level CSUM Slope Changes During Event Hours

The slopes of this curve for the three hours prior to the start of the event and the hours during the
event are calculated (Figure 3-2). The Evaluators calculate a ratio of the event period slope divided by
the pre-period slope to test if there is a significant change in the slope due to the demand response
event. A contributing device is detected by a decrease in the line slope. Therefore, the ratio is less
than one. Using this test, the Evaluators defined sites with a slope less than one to be a contributing
device, which indicates a decrease in demand during the demand response event.
3.5.2 Linear 10% Decrease Analysis
In parallel with the CSUM analysis, a linear test for 10% reduction in consumption during the demand
response event is also employed. For each unique device, the consumption for the hour prior to the
event is compared to the consumption during the first hour of the event (Figure 3-2) to detect a
reduction in demand greater than 10% with the following equation:
Non-Contributing Device if 𝑇1𝑘𝑊ℎ≤𝑇2𝑘𝑊ℎ
Where,

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-8
𝑇1𝑘𝑊ℎ= 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝐻𝑟𝑘𝑊ℎ−𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝐻𝑟𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝑇2𝑘𝑊ℎ=𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝐻𝑟𝑘𝑊ℎ∗10%
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝐻𝑟𝑘𝑊ℎ= demand displayed during the hour prior to the demand response event
𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝐻𝑟𝑘𝑊ℎ= demand displayed during the first hour of the demand response event
By taking advantage of the processing speed of vectorized programming in the R-Studio environment,
every individual site in the program is tested per event.

3.5.3 Snapback Analysis
The Evaluators observed that some customers had higher loads than the baseline would predict during
the curtailment event. However, a snapback was observed for these customers in the first hour after the
event ended, suggesting these customers had in fact curtailed AC usage, but had higher than expected
non-AC usage during the event.
An additional test was developed such that if a customer had a higher load during the first snapback
hour compared to the maximum load seen during the curtailment event, they are not classified as a
non-contributor.
3.6 Models
This section describes the two model specifications employed by the Evaluators as part of the impact
evaluation and measurement of demand impacts for the program:
1. Regression model
2. Customer Baseline (CBL) Model
As part of the evaluation objectives, the Evaluators explored both models to estimate which inputs
resulted in the most accurate predictions of demand on proxy days and therefore produces reliable
demand impact estimates.
3.6.1 Regression Model
This section describes the regression analysis methodology employed by the Evaluators as part of the
impact evaluation and measurement of demand impacts for the program.
The Evaluators estimated demand reductions using a weather-adjusted Linear Fixed Effects Regression
(LFER) model. This model specification uses customers’ hourly AMI meter data during event and non-
event days to estimate average customer-level impact the curtailment event displays on energy
demand. The LFER model specifies energy demand as a function of weather, hour, day of the week, and
household-level behaviors. The Evaluators identified non-event days during the same month as the
demand response events as days with weather patterns that most closely match the weather patterns
on the event days. The Evaluators used these days to serve as the counterfactual baseline for event day
demand usage. Baseline days are further detailed in Section 3.4.
The final model specification is shown below.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 3-9
𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑘𝑊ℎ)𝑖𝑡
=𝛼0 +𝛽1𝐷𝑂𝑊𝑡+𝛽2𝐶𝐷𝐻𝑖𝑡+𝛽3𝐻𝐷𝑖𝑡+𝛽4𝑀𝐴4𝐶𝐷𝐻𝑖𝑡+𝛽5 ∑𝛼ℎ
24
ℎ=1
∗𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡,ℎ
+ 𝛽6 ∑𝑐𝑖
𝑛
𝑖=1
∗𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑡,𝑖+𝜖𝑡
Where:
𝛼0 = the intercept term;
t = the index for time intervals;
i = the index for a customer;
𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒(𝑘𝑊ℎ) = average usage during time interval t;
𝛽𝑘,𝛼ℎ,𝑐𝑖 = vectors of coefficients for the variables defined below;
𝐷𝑂𝑊 = a dummy variable for day of the week during time interval t;
𝐶𝐷𝐻 = cooling degree hours during time interval t;
𝐻𝐷𝐻 = heating degree hours during time interval t;
𝑀𝐴24𝐶𝐷𝐻 = a moving average of the last 24 hours CDH relative to time interval t;
𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 = a dummy variable for customer i;
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 = a vector of dummy variables during time interval t; and
𝜖 = the error term.
The Evaluators fit the models to estimate weather-dependent daily demand differences between
adjusted baseline and event usage. The Evaluators define the inputs to the models in the following
sections.
3.6.2 Customer Baseline (CBL) Models
In addition to the regression model defined above, the Evaluators also explored customer baseline (CBL)
models. The Evaluators constructed a 3-of-5 baseline CBL approach and a 3-of-10 CBL baseline
approach.
For a 3-of-5 baseline, the Evaluators examine the load data from the most recent five non-event, non-
holiday weekdays relative to the event day and calculate the mean demand usage values of the three
highest load days.
For a 3-of-10 baseline, the Evaluators examine the load data from the most recent ten non-event, non-
holiday weekdays relative to the event day and calculate the mean demand usage values of the three
highest days. The unadjusted baseline calculated for both CBL approaches above is then adjusted by

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-10
comparing the event day usage during the hour prior to the event with the baseline day usage during that
same hour. This is used to create an event-day adjustment factor.
The adjustment factor corrects the baseline to align with the weather and load demonstrated on the
event day. The Evaluators utilized a 1-hour adjustment offset factor (i.e. the hour prior to the event) and
created additive and multiplicative offset factors for both the 3-of-5 CBLs and 3-of-10 CBLs. A 1-hour
additive adjustment takes the difference between usage during the hour prior to the event on the event
day and the average usage during the hour prior to the event on the selected baseline days and adds it
to the unadjusted baseline usage. A multiplicative adjustment takes the unadjusted baseline and
multiplies it by the ratio of the two loads referenced above. The 1-hour adjusted baselines are
calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑
=𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑈𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑+(𝑘𝑊 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡−𝑘𝑊 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒
𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑
=𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑈𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑∗(𝑘𝑊 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑘𝑊 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒⁄)
Where:
𝑘𝑊 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 = Average usage 1-hour prior to the event on the event day
𝑘𝑊 𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 = Average usage 1-hour prior to the event on the selected baseline days
The Evaluators used the above equations to estimate 3-of-5 CBLs and 3-of-10 CBLs.
4. Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Idaho Power’s A/C Cool Credit Program to verify unit-
level and program-level demand impacts for PY2021. The following section summarizes findings for the
program. The Evaluators used data collected and reported in the tracking database and AMI meter data
provided by Idaho Power to evaluate demand reductions. The approach summarized below provides the
strongest estimate of achieved demand reductions for the program. The Evaluators summarize the
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the A/C Cool Credit Program in
the section below.
4.1.1 Modeling Results
The Evaluators developed six different models based on LFER, CBL, and a mix of CBL and regression
(Mixed Model). The Evaluators assessed each model fit on proxy days. The Mixed Model is a
combination of regression and CBLs models and selects a CBL or regression baseline on a customer-
specific basis using the lowest Relative Root Mean Squared Error (RRMSE).
The Evaluators used RRSME to compare performance for the six different models. Using RRSME as a
metric for model performance allows for comparison between different types of models by normalizing
the model errors.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-11
Table 4-1 demonstrates the model performance results on proxy days. The Mixed Model displayed the
lowest RRMSE and lowest bias and was selected for reporting final program demand reductions because
it had displayed the best fit. The 3-of-10 CBL underperformed relative to the other models.
Table 4-1: Model Performance Comparison
Model RRMSE RMSE Bias Adjusted
R-Squared
Best Fit
(Smallest
Error/Bias)
Mixed Model 0.013 0.049 0.006 NA X
3-of-5 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset 0.038 0.141 0.034 NA
Regression 0.051 0.189 -0.049 0.717
3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset 0.063 0.234 0.037 NA
3-of-10 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset 0.077 0.289 0.075 NA
3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset 0.089 0.333 0.079 NA

4.1.1.1 Proxy Day Load Shapes
The figures presented in this section display each model’s performance on proxy days.
The regression model had a tendency to underestimate actual usage. This tends to occur when there are
a large number of event days and the remaining days available to use as baseline days are not entirely
representative of the event days themselves.
The CBL models tended to overestimate the baselines, with the 3-of-10 baseline having the largest
positive bias and largest errors.
The Mixed Model displayed the lowest errors and bias and more accurately predicted the actual usage
on proxy days. For example, there are no proxy days when the Mixed Model overestimated or
underestimated the actual usage.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-12
Figure 4-1: Regression Proxy Day Performance

Figure 4-2: Mixed Model Proxy Day Performance

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-13
Figure 4-3: 3-of-10 Additive CBL Proxy Day Performance

Figure 4-4: 3-of-5 Additive CBL Proxy Day Performance

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-14
Figure 4-5: 3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL Proxy Day Performance

Figure 4-6: 3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL Proxy Day Performance

4.1.1.2 Event Day Load Shapes
The Evaluators summarize each model’s performance on event days in the figures provided below.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-15
The regression model performed well, however, on four of the nine event days, the regression model
underestimated the baseline. This can be seen by observing the baseline demand in the hours
immediately preceding the event and the slightly negative bias shown in the model results above.
The CBL models had a tendency to overestimate usage during the peak hours. This can be seen on days
when the baseline value is greater than or equal to the actual usage in the first hour following the
curtailment window (i.e. the snapback period).
The Mixed Model performed well on event days and did not underestimate the baseline before the
event or overestimate the baseline during the snapback period.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-16
Figure 4-7: Regression Baseline Performance

Figure 4-8: Mixed Model Baseline Performance

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-17
Figure 4-9: 3-of-10 Additive CBL Baseline Performance

Figure 4-10: 3-of-5 Additive CBL Baseline Performance

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-18
Figure 4-11: 3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL Baseline Performance

Figure 4-12: 3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL Baseline Performance

4.1.2 Non-Contributing Household Summary
The Evaluators estimated the non-contributing household rate for the program to be 14% across all
events. The non-contributing household rate for each event varied between 11% and 17%. Table 4-2
summarizes the non-contributing household rates for each event.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-19
Table 4-2: Non-Contributing Household Rate
Date
% Non-
Contributing
Household Rate
6/28/2021 10.96%
7/12/2021 13.66%
7/26/2021 14.39%
7/27/2021 17.18%
7/28/2021 15.52%
7/29/2021 12.53%
7/30/2021 12.92%
8/4/2021 16.64%
8/12/2021 12.87%
Event Average 14.08%

4.1.3 Weather and Demand Reduction Correlations
In this section, the Evaluators demonstrate the relationship between weather and observed demand
reductions.
Figure 4-13 displays the relationship between CDD and average kW/household demand reductions on
event days. A strong positive correlation exists between CDD and demand reductions, indicating that
days displaying higher temperatures also display larger demand reductions. The CDD predicts about 56%
of the variation in demand reductions according to the R-Squared, indicating that the CDD may explain
56% of the variation in demand reduction.
Figure 4-13: Event Day CDD and Demand Reductions Regression

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-20
Interestingly, a higher event time average temperature (F) did not correlate with higher average
kW/household demand reductions. Figure 4-14 shows that demand reductions do not increase with
higher average event time temperatures (F). This may be due to differences between a home’s inside air
temperature and the outdoor air temperature. The home’s internal air temperature increases are lagged
compared to the outdoor air temperature. This suggests that to maximize program demand reductions,
events should be called on days with the highest CDD and not simply on days with the highest average
temperature during peak hours.
Figure 4-14: Event Time Temperature (F) and Demand Reductions Regression

Figure 4-15 confirms the relationship between CDD and kW/household usage during event hours on the
event day. This figure shows a strong positive correlation between CDD and baseline kW usage. This
confirms that calling events on days with a high forecasted CDD corresponds to days with the highest
forecasted peak kW usage. This information can be used to maximize demand reductions.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-21
Figure 4-15: Event Day CDD and Baseline kW/household Regression

4.1.4 Summary of Impact Results
The Evaluators summarize the ACCC Program verified impact evaluation results in this section. Table 4-3
displays the verified ACCC Program demand reductions.
Table 4-3: Verified A/C Cool Credit Program Demand Impacts
Number of
Customers
Expected Unit
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Expected
Program
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
Realized Unit
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Realized
Program
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
Realization
Rate
20,995 1.06 22,254.70 0.87 18,351.20 82.5%
Verified program demand reductions by event are summarized in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: A/C Cool Credit Program PY2021 Impact Results by Event Date
Event Date
Verified
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Verified Total
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
6/28/2021 0.96 20,051.30
7/12/2021 0.77 16,152.68
7/26/2021 0.87 18,255.18
7/27/2021 0.83 17,488.65
7/28/2021 0.74 15,437.98

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-22
7/29/2021 0.92 19,305.29
7/30/2021 1.06 22,245.36
8/4/2021 0.81 17,087.64
8/12/2021 0.91 19,136.72
Table 4-5 displays demand reductions for each model. The Evaluators selected the Mixed Model to
calculate verified demand reductions for the program as this model had the lowest error and smallest
bias. The expected kW savings/unit rate for the program is 1.06 kW/household1. The realized MW is
18.35 which corresponds to an 82.5% realization rate.
Table 4-5: Summary of kW Impact by Model
Model
Average
Demand
Reductions
(kW per
Household)
Total Average
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
Total Average
Demand
Reductions
(MW)
3-of-10 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset 1.09 22,899 22.90
3-of-5 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset 0.93 19,538 19.54
Mixed Model 0.87 18,351 18.35
3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset 1.19 25,016 25.02
3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset 1.18 24,718 24.72
Regression 0.62 13,032 13.03
4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators’ conclusions and recommendations for the A/C Cool Credit
Program evaluation.
4.2.1 Conclusions
The Evaluators provide the following conclusions regarding IPC’s ACCC Program:
◼ Utilizing multiple baseline models and assigning the best fitting baseline model on a customer-
specific basis resulted in lower bias and smaller errors on proxy event days.
◼ The current method of estimating program demand reductions utilizing a 3-of-10 Customer
Baseline (CBL) approach did not perform as well as other baseline approaches in terms of
predicting usage on proxy event days (higher bias and larger errors).
◼ Regression modeling outperformed CBL modeling in terms of predicting baseline usage on proxy
days.
◼ Higher demand reductions are positively correlated with higher Cooling Degree Days (CDD).
◼ Overall rates for non-contributing customers were within the normal ranges observed for
residential DR programs.

1 For the expected kW/unit values, the Evaluators utilized IPC’s anticipated kW/ unit reduction at 100F, which corresponds to the
average max temperature (F) on event days in 2021.

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 4-23
4.2.2 Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following recommendations regarding IPC’s ACCC Program:
◼ Utilize a mixed model or regression model to estimate saving for the programs. CBLs on their
own may systematically overestimate baseline usage and demand reductions for the program.
◼ Utilize proxy event days to estimate bias and error when determining which model to select for
estimating baseline usage.
◼ As shown in Section 4.1.3, a strong positive correlation exists between CDD and baseline usage,
and between CDD and program demand reductions. The Evaluators recommend calling DR
events on days with the highest forecasted CDD to maximize program demand reductions. If
numerous events are called on days with lower CDD, and therefore lower expected demand
reductions, the Evaluators recommend calculating demand reductions by using average demand
reductions from the maximum event (or average demand reductions from the top 3 days with
the highest CDD) to avoid penalizing the program or incentivizing calling fewer DR events.

Tables of Contents and Tables 24
5. Appendix: Regression Results
This appendix provides additional details on the regression analyses conducted for the A/C Cool Credit
Program. The Evaluators summarize a comparison of kW/household demand reductions calculation
methods and full load reductions for each model by event and hour.
Table 5-1 provides estimates of kW/household demand reductions utilizing various calculation methods
according to the following definitions:
◼ Average kW/household = average reduction across all hours and events.
◼ Max Any Hour kW/household = average demand reductions for the hour and event displaying the
highest load reduction.
◼ Max Hour kW/household = average demand reductions for the hour displaying the highest load
reduction across all events.
◼ Max Event kW/household = average demand reductions for the event displaying the highest load
reduction.

Table 5-1: kW Per Household Demand Reductions by Model and Calculation Method
Model Average kW
per Household
Max Any Hour
kW per
Household
Max Hour kW
per Household
Max Event kW
per Household
3-of-10 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset 1.09 1.47 1.18 1.35
3-of-5 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset 0.93 1.27 0.99 1.18
Mixed Model 0.87 1.16 0.94 1.06
3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset 1.19 1.83 1.28 1.67
3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset 1.18 1.70 1.26 1.56
Regression 0.62 0.75 0.68 0.67

Table 5-2 through Table 5-7 provides actual kW, baseline kW, and kW reductions by hour and event day
for each model. RRMSE, RMSE, and Bias were calculated on proxy event days and are shown with event
days because corrections in the baseline kW can be made using the average bias and the bias is a
function of the chosen model.

Evaluation Report 25

Table 5-2: 3-of-10 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour
Event Date Hour
Actual kW
per
household
Baseline kW
per
household
Reduction
kW per
Household
RRMSE
(Proxy
Days)
RMSE
(Proxy
Days)
Bias
(Proxy
Days)
6/28/2021 17 2.643 3.723 1.080 0.067 0.241 0.067
6/28/2021 18 2.714 4.051 1.337 0.089 0.337 0.089
6/28/2021 19 2.739 4.073 1.334 0.087 0.332 0.085
7/12/2021 17 2.503 3.362 0.859 0.067 0.241 0.067
7/12/2021 18 2.666 3.607 0.942 0.089 0.337 0.089
7/12/2021 19 2.748 3.562 0.814 0.087 0.332 0.085
7/26/2021 17 2.459 3.476 1.017 0.067 0.241 0.067
7/26/2021 18 2.610 3.755 1.145 0.089 0.337 0.089
7/26/2021 19 2.689 3.725 1.036 0.087 0.332 0.085
7/27/2021 18 2.640 3.647 1.007 0.089 0.337 0.089
7/27/2021 19 2.688 3.741 1.053 0.087 0.332 0.085
7/27/2021 20 2.691 3.549 0.858 0.061 0.228 0.059
7/28/2021 17 2.447 3.339 0.892 0.067 0.241 0.067
7/28/2021 18 2.617 3.618 1.001 0.089 0.337 0.089
7/28/2021 19 2.700 3.588 0.888 0.087 0.332 0.085
7/29/2021 17 2.611 3.697 1.086 0.067 0.241 0.067
7/29/2021 18 2.674 3.977 1.303 0.089 0.337 0.089
7/29/2021 19 2.757 3.946 1.189 0.087 0.332 0.085
7/30/2021 17 2.644 3.841 1.197 0.067 0.241 0.067
7/30/2021 18 2.651 4.121 1.470 0.089 0.337 0.089
7/30/2021 19 2.702 4.090 1.388 0.087 0.332 0.085
8/4/2021 17 2.635 3.609 0.974 0.067 0.241 0.067
8/4/2021 18 2.700 3.864 1.164 0.089 0.337 0.089
8/4/2021 19 2.792 3.824 1.031 0.087 0.332 0.085
8/12/2021 17 2.544 3.600 1.056 0.067 0.241 0.067
8/12/2021 18 2.647 3.874 1.228 0.089 0.337 0.089
8/12/2021 19 2.727 3.828 1.101 0.087 0.332 0.085

Evaluation Report 26

Table 5-3: 3-of-5 Additive CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour
Event Date Hour
Actual kW
per
household
Baseline kW
per
household
Reduction
kW per
Household
RRMSE
(Proxy
Days)
RMSE
(Proxy
Days)
Bias
(Proxy
Days)
6/28/2021 17 2.643 3.621 0.979 0.036 0.128 0.035
6/28/2021 18 2.714 3.878 1.164 0.045 0.170 0.044
6/28/2021 19 2.739 3.913 1.174 0.041 0.157 0.037
7/12/2021 17 2.503 3.215 0.712 0.036 0.128 0.035
7/12/2021 18 2.666 3.447 0.782 0.045 0.170 0.044
7/12/2021 19 2.748 3.483 0.735 0.041 0.157 0.037
7/26/2021 17 2.459 3.314 0.854 0.036 0.128 0.035
7/26/2021 18 2.610 3.552 0.942 0.045 0.170 0.044
7/26/2021 19 2.689 3.575 0.886 0.041 0.157 0.037
7/27/2021 18 2.640 3.466 0.826 0.045 0.170 0.044
7/27/2021 19 2.688 3.539 0.850 0.041 0.157 0.037
7/27/2021 20 2.691 3.421 0.730 0.026 0.096 0.022
7/28/2021 17 2.447 3.176 0.730 0.036 0.128 0.035
7/28/2021 18 2.617 3.415 0.798 0.045 0.170 0.044
7/28/2021 19 2.700 3.437 0.737 0.041 0.157 0.037
7/29/2021 17 2.611 3.535 0.924 0.036 0.128 0.035
7/29/2021 18 2.674 3.774 1.100 0.045 0.170 0.044
7/29/2021 19 2.757 3.796 1.039 0.041 0.157 0.037
7/30/2021 17 2.644 3.679 1.034 0.036 0.128 0.035
7/30/2021 18 2.651 3.918 1.267 0.045 0.170 0.044
7/30/2021 19 2.702 3.940 1.237 0.041 0.157 0.037
8/4/2021 17 2.635 3.426 0.791 0.036 0.128 0.035
8/4/2021 18 2.700 3.650 0.950 0.045 0.170 0.044
8/4/2021 19 2.792 3.610 0.818 0.041 0.157 0.037
8/12/2021 17 2.544 3.454 0.910 0.036 0.128 0.035
8/12/2021 18 2.647 3.741 1.095 0.045 0.170 0.044
8/12/2021 19 2.727 3.789 1.062 0.041 0.157 0.037

Evaluation Report 27

Table 5-4: Mixed Model Load Reductions by Event and Hour
Event Date Hour
Actual kW
per
household
Baseline kW
per
household
Reduction
kW per
Household
RRMSE
(Proxy
Days)
RMSE
(Proxy
Days)
Bias
(Proxy
Days)
6/28/2021 17 2.643 3.473 0.830 0.008 0.027 0.000
6/28/2021 18 2.714 3.721 1.007 0.017 0.065 0.015
6/28/2021 19 2.739 3.767 1.028 0.016 0.062 0.010
7/12/2021 17 2.503 3.240 0.737 0.008 0.027 0.000
7/12/2021 18 2.666 3.479 0.813 0.017 0.065 0.015
7/12/2021 19 2.748 3.506 0.758 0.016 0.062 0.010
7/26/2021 17 2.459 3.284 0.824 0.008 0.027 0.000
7/26/2021 18 2.610 3.527 0.917 0.017 0.065 0.015
7/26/2021 19 2.689 3.555 0.867 0.016 0.062 0.010
7/27/2021 18 2.640 3.512 0.873 0.017 0.065 0.015
7/27/2021 19 2.688 3.566 0.878 0.016 0.062 0.010
7/27/2021 20 2.691 3.439 0.749 0.008 0.029 -0.002
7/28/2021 17 2.447 3.140 0.694 0.008 0.027 0.000
7/28/2021 18 2.617 3.406 0.789 0.017 0.065 0.015
7/28/2021 19 2.700 3.423 0.723 0.016 0.062 0.010
7/29/2021 17 2.611 3.418 0.807 0.008 0.027 0.000
7/29/2021 18 2.674 3.679 1.005 0.017 0.065 0.015
7/29/2021 19 2.757 3.704 0.947 0.016 0.062 0.010
7/30/2021 17 2.644 3.539 0.894 0.008 0.027 0.000
7/30/2021 18 2.651 3.810 1.160 0.017 0.065 0.015
7/30/2021 19 2.702 3.827 1.125 0.016 0.062 0.010
8/4/2021 17 2.635 3.395 0.759 0.008 0.027 0.000
8/4/2021 18 2.700 3.607 0.906 0.017 0.065 0.015
8/4/2021 19 2.792 3.568 0.776 0.016 0.062 0.010
8/12/2021 17 2.544 3.350 0.807 0.008 0.027 0.000
8/12/2021 18 2.647 3.643 0.997 0.017 0.065 0.015
8/12/2021 19 2.727 3.659 0.931 0.016 0.062 0.010

Evaluation Report 28

Table 5-5: 3-of-10 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour
Event Date Hour
Actual kW
per
household
Baseline kW
per
household
Reduction
kW per
Household
RRMSE
(Proxy
Days)
RMSE
(Proxy
Days)
Bias
(Proxy
Days)
6/28/2021 17 2.643 3.946 1.303 0.074 0.266 0.071
6/28/2021 18 2.714 4.454 1.740 0.101 0.383 0.096
6/28/2021 19 2.739 4.476 1.738 0.101 0.385 0.087
7/12/2021 17 2.503 3.223 0.720 0.074 0.266 0.071
7/12/2021 18 2.666 3.310 0.644 0.101 0.383 0.096
7/12/2021 19 2.748 3.176 0.428 0.101 0.385 0.087
7/26/2021 17 2.459 3.525 1.066 0.074 0.266 0.071
7/26/2021 18 2.610 3.829 1.219 0.101 0.383 0.096
7/26/2021 19 2.689 3.822 1.134 0.101 0.385 0.087
7/27/2021 18 2.640 3.717 1.077 0.101 0.383 0.096
7/27/2021 19 2.688 3.851 1.163 0.101 0.385 0.087
7/27/2021 20 2.691 3.667 0.976 0.074 0.276 0.060
7/28/2021 17 2.447 3.416 0.970 0.074 0.266 0.071
7/28/2021 18 2.617 3.704 1.087 0.101 0.383 0.096
7/28/2021 19 2.700 3.680 0.980 0.101 0.385 0.087
7/29/2021 17 2.611 3.861 1.250 0.074 0.266 0.071
7/29/2021 18 2.674 4.199 1.526 0.101 0.383 0.096
7/29/2021 19 2.757 4.193 1.435 0.101 0.385 0.087
7/30/2021 17 2.644 4.081 1.437 0.074 0.266 0.071
7/30/2021 18 2.651 4.484 1.833 0.101 0.383 0.096
7/30/2021 19 2.702 4.457 1.755 0.101 0.385 0.087
8/4/2021 17 2.635 3.651 1.016 0.074 0.266 0.071
8/4/2021 18 2.700 3.963 1.263 0.101 0.383 0.096
8/4/2021 19 2.792 3.949 1.157 0.101 0.385 0.087
8/12/2021 17 2.544 3.647 1.103 0.074 0.266 0.071
8/12/2021 18 2.647 3.803 1.157 0.101 0.383 0.096
8/12/2021 19 2.727 3.724 0.996 0.101 0.385 0.087

Evaluation Report 29

Table 5-6: 3-of-5 Multiplicative CBL 1-Hr Offset Load Reductions by Event and Hour
Event Date Hour
Actual kW
per
household
Baseline kW
per
household
Reduction
kW per
Household
RRMSE
(Proxy
Days)
RMSE
(Proxy
Days)
Bias
(Proxy
Days)
6/28/2021 17 2.643 3.810 1.167 0.046 0.167 0.038
6/28/2021 18 2.714 4.204 1.490 0.060 0.229 0.044
6/28/2021 19 2.739 4.251 1.513 0.078 0.299 0.040
7/12/2021 17 2.503 3.319 0.816 0.046 0.167 0.038
7/12/2021 18 2.666 3.619 0.954 0.060 0.229 0.044
7/12/2021 19 2.748 3.655 0.906 0.078 0.299 0.040
7/26/2021 17 2.459 3.420 0.960 0.046 0.167 0.038
7/26/2021 18 2.610 3.716 1.106 0.060 0.229 0.044
7/26/2021 19 2.689 3.773 1.085 0.078 0.299 0.040
7/27/2021 18 2.640 3.606 0.966 0.060 0.229 0.044
7/27/2021 19 2.688 3.743 1.054 0.078 0.299 0.040
7/27/2021 20 2.691 3.614 0.923 0.060 0.224 0.026
7/28/2021 17 2.447 3.337 0.890 0.046 0.167 0.038
7/28/2021 18 2.617 3.666 1.049 0.060 0.229 0.044
7/28/2021 19 2.700 3.724 1.024 0.078 0.299 0.040
7/29/2021 17 2.611 3.747 1.136 0.046 0.167 0.038
7/29/2021 18 2.674 4.102 1.429 0.060 0.229 0.044
7/29/2021 19 2.757 4.138 1.380 0.078 0.299 0.040
7/30/2021 17 2.644 3.952 1.308 0.046 0.167 0.038
7/30/2021 18 2.651 4.354 1.704 0.060 0.229 0.044
7/30/2021 19 2.702 4.385 1.683 0.078 0.299 0.040
8/4/2021 17 2.635 3.557 0.922 0.046 0.167 0.038
8/4/2021 18 2.700 3.842 1.142 0.060 0.229 0.044
8/4/2021 19 2.792 3.809 1.017 0.078 0.299 0.040
8/12/2021 17 2.544 3.689 1.145 0.046 0.167 0.038
8/12/2021 18 2.647 4.149 1.503 0.060 0.229 0.044
8/12/2021 19 2.727 4.245 1.517 0.078 0.299 0.040

Evaluation Report 30

Table 5-7: Regression Load Reductions by Event and Hour
Event Date Hour
Actual kW
per
household
Baseline kW
per
household
Reduction
kW per
Household
RRMSE
(Proxy
Days)
RMSE
(Proxy
Days)
Bias
(Proxy
Days)
6/28/2021 17 2.643 3.224 0.582 0.060 0.215 -0.058
6/28/2021 18 2.714 3.410 0.696 0.044 0.165 -0.042
6/28/2021 19 2.739 3.478 0.739 0.050 0.192 -0.047
7/12/2021 17 2.503 3.115 0.612 0.060 0.215 -0.058
7/12/2021 18 2.666 3.362 0.697 0.044 0.165 -0.042
7/12/2021 19 2.748 3.390 0.641 0.050 0.192 -0.047
7/26/2021 17 2.459 3.073 0.613 0.060 0.215 -0.058
7/26/2021 18 2.610 3.271 0.661 0.044 0.165 -0.042
7/26/2021 19 2.689 3.323 0.634 0.050 0.192 -0.047
7/27/2021 18 2.640 3.388 0.748 0.044 0.165 -0.042
7/27/2021 19 2.688 3.384 0.695 0.050 0.192 -0.047
7/27/2021 20 2.691 3.252 0.561 0.048 0.180 -0.047
7/28/2021 17 2.447 2.984 0.537 0.060 0.215 -0.058
7/28/2021 18 2.617 3.245 0.628 0.044 0.165 -0.042
7/28/2021 19 2.700 3.256 0.556 0.050 0.192 -0.047
7/29/2021 17 2.611 3.073 0.462 0.060 0.215 -0.058
7/29/2021 18 2.674 3.284 0.611 0.044 0.165 -0.042
7/29/2021 19 2.757 3.355 0.597 0.050 0.192 -0.047
7/30/2021 17 2.644 3.136 0.492 0.060 0.215 -0.058
7/30/2021 18 2.651 3.357 0.707 0.044 0.165 -0.042
7/30/2021 19 2.702 3.400 0.698 0.050 0.192 -0.047
8/4/2021 17 2.635 3.220 0.584 0.060 0.215 -0.058
8/4/2021 18 2.700 3.364 0.664 0.044 0.165 -0.042
8/4/2021 19 2.792 3.341 0.548 0.050 0.192 -0.047
8/12/2021 17 2.544 3.066 0.523 0.060 0.215 -0.058
8/12/2021 18 2.647 3.314 0.667 0.044 0.165 -0.042
8/12/2021 19 2.727 3.334 0.606 0.050 0.192 -0.047

Idaho Power Company

Idaho Power Company
Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program – Custom Projects
2020 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results

February 11, 2022

ii Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022

6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel [phone] | Fax [phone]
tetratech.com

Copyright © 2018 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

iii Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 2
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations ................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Process Recommendations ............................................................................................... 4
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Marketing & Outreach ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Tracking & Reporting ......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals ............................................................................................................... 9
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Refrigeration .................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Variable Speed Drives ..................................................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Other ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.4 Lighting............................................................................................................................ 17
3.2.5 HVAC .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.6 Energy Management ....................................................................................................... 18
3.2.7 Fan .................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.8 Controls ........................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.9 Pump ............................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Review of PY2017 Impact Recommendations .......................................................................... 22
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 24
4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 24
4.2 Process Review Results........................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1 Materials Review ............................................................................................................. 25
4.2.2 Interview Engineers ......................................................................................................... 26
4.2.3 Interview Participants ...................................................................................................... 26

iv Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2020 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects ....................................................................... 2
Table 2. PY2020 Custom Option Summary by Project Measure ............................................................ 6
Table 3. PY2020 Custom Projects program Evaluation Activities ........................................................... 8
Table 4. PY2020 Custom Projects Sampling Summary ....................................................................... 10
Table 5. PY2020 Custom Project Review Summary ............................................................................ 12
Table 6. PY2020 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects ..................................................................... 12
Table 7. PY2020 Custom Refrigeration Impact Results Summary ....................................................... 13
Table 8. PY2020 Custom VFD Impact Results Summary .................................................................... 14
Table 9. PY2020 Custom Other Impact Results Summary ................................................................... 16
Table 10. PY2020 Custom Lighting Impact Results Summary ............................................................. 17
Table 11. PY2020 Custom HVAC Impact Results Summary ................................................................ 18
Table 12. PY2020 Custom Energy Management Impact Results Summary ......................................... 19
Table 13. PY2020 Custom Fan Impact Results Summary ................................................................... 20
Table 14. PY2020 Custom Controls Impact Results Summary ............................................................ 20
Table 15. PY2020 Custom Pump Impact Results Summary ................................................................ 21
Table 16. PY2017 C&I Custom Projects Program Recommendations ................................................. 22
Table 17. PY2020 Custom Participant Satisfaction Response Summary ............................................. 27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program Savings ................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Process Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................ 24

v Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2020 impact and process evaluation of the Custom Projects component of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Efficiency program. This evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support.
We would like to specifically thank Chad Severson, Chris Pollow, and Andee Morton of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to follow-up
questions and data and documentation requests. Tetra Tech received valuable assistance from Idaho Power Energy Advisors with scheduling verification visits.
The Tetra Tech Evaluation Team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark
Bergum, Adam Jablonski, Graham Thorbrogger, Nathan Kwan, and Kathryn Shirley.

1 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2021 impact and process evaluation of the 2020 Custom Projects component of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (CIP). The Idaho Power CIP provides a comprehensive menu of incentives and services to facilitate the implementation of cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial customers. Incentives cover retrofits, new construction and major renovation projects, and custom incentives for cost-effective projects not covered on the menu of incentives. In addition, the CIP also provides technical training and energy
assessments of customers' facilities.
This report section consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results can be found in section 3, with process
results detailed in section 4.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Custom Projects Option (also known as Custom incentives, or Custom Projects program) of the Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Program provides monetary incentives and energy auditing
services to help identify and evaluate potential energy-saving modifications or projects in new and existing facilities. The goal is to encourage commercial and industrial energy savings in Idaho and Oregon service areas. The Custom Option offers an incentive level of up to 70 percent of the project
cost or 18 cents per kilowatt-hour for estimated first-year savings, whichever is less.
Interested customers submit applications to Idaho Power for potential modifications. Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information to support the energy-savings calculations. Once projects are completed, customers submit a payment application. Each project is reviewed by Idaho Power engineering staff or a third-party consultant to verify the energy savings methods and calculations. An Idaho Power lighting tool is used to determine all lighting savings and incentives. End-use measure information, project photographs, and project costs are collected through the verification process.
Idaho Power or a third-party consultant conducts onsite power monitoring and data collection before and after project implementation to ensure energy savings are obtained and within program guidelines on many projects, especially the larger and more complex projects. If changes in scope take place on a project, Idaho Power recalculates the energy savings and incentive amount based on the actual installed equipment and performance. The measurement and verification reports provided to Idaho Power include verification of energy savings, costs, estimates of measure life, and any final
recommendations.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
To address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2020 program, providing estimates of realization rates, and suggesting enhancements to the savings
analysis and reporting, the evaluation team conducted the impact evaluation activities shown in Figure 1.

2 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities

Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for Custom Projects. Figure 2 highlights the activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities

1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The impact evaluation for the Custom Projects program revealed a successfully run program that has mitigated many of the risks associated with custom energy efficiency programs. The changes implemented since the evaluation of the 2017 program year (PY2017) have significantly improved the program and increased energy savings. The evaluation team found only minor adjustments to ex-ante savings and limited process-oriented opportunities. Overall, findings from the impact evaluation show the program savings calculations are well supported and documented. The standard process to
complete project description documents is updated throughout the project implementation. Documentation of the baseline and final savings calculation reasoning allows the evaluators and others to understand the project progression. The verification process implemented for most projects also adjusts the energy savings to include the actual operating conditions of the improved process. Overall, these items attributed to the 99.8 percent realization rate, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. PY2020 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects
Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization rate
Refrigeration 24,568,611 24,504,356 99.7%
VFD 23,905,463 24,084,356 100.7%
Other 9,068,218 8,862,126 97.7%
Lighting 1,887,894 1,876,531 99.4%
HVAC 504,749 504,749 100.0%
Energy Management 443,768 443,768 100.0%
Fans 351,519 318,910 90.7%
Controls 189,265 188,425 99.6%
Pump 126,531 121,118 95.7%
Overall 61,046,018 60,904,339 99.8%
The documentation provided for the program showed both application submittal and the verification analysis with a post-install final project review document. The project review explains the changes that occurred between the initial application and verification. The IPC files provided included:
• Application
• Engineering analysis and calculations
Data Review and Sampling Complete Desk Reviews Conduct Site Verification Verify kWh Savings
Materials Review Program Staff Interview Third-party Engineer Interviews Participant Interviews

3 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
• Verification Report
• Tracking system screenshot of project closeout
• Post-install project description
The IPC files did not initially include most spreadsheet calculation files completed by third-party engineers. These files were easily obtained throughout the evaluation. The consistent documentation and ease of extracting the documents simplified the impact evaluation of the sampled projects. The ease of understanding that the impact evaluation team had with the documentation reflects that the quality control and quality assurance of the Custom Projects program is standardized. A standardized quality assurance and quality control process eliminates risks that unseen variables impact individual calculations.
The Custom Projects program addressed all the PY2017 evaluation findings through thoughtful implementation of the program that incorporates the goals of the recommendation. The improvements made by IPC have reduced the risks associated with custom calculated energy savings. The efforts to complete a verification visit after the installation and start-up of the project reduced the variability in evaluated realization rates typically found in a custom program.
In addition to the technical components to claim energy savings, the Custom Projects program representatives, energy advisors, and third-party verification engineers have built the relationships and
underlying trust leading to unique outcomes for Idaho Power. The Custom Projects program in PY2020 showed a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency that requires high levels of technical competency and relationship trust between participants, market actors, and IPC staff. As a result, the
participant's projects identify and implement operations coordinated with equipment and maintenance to unlock energy efficiency, which is typically a theoretical opportunity. In particular, refrigeration projects in the program are advanced. The calculations are coordinated with small operational
adjustments, design criteria, and the expertise of the IPC staff and third-party verification staff to verify implementation and support the commissioning of the project once installed. Based on our experience, the refrigeration projects implemented with the support of the IPC Custom Projects program would not have occurred in other regions of the country because the market would be unable to design the improvements, coordinate efforts of installation and operation, or explain the engineering concepts to the DSM program staff.
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Maintain the long-term focus of the Cohort projects. The cohort participants typically do not show savings in the first year of participation. Still, verification phone calls indicated that each municipal department participant had changed their approach to decisions about new projects and ongoing management of their system to increase the focus on energy efficiency and operating costs. The changed behaviors indicate that the energy savings will continue beyond the active involvement of the IPC Custom Projects program. The participants also indicated that they would like to bring the Cohort approach to other departments within their municipality and feel that they can easily engage their supervisors based on the previous track record of program participants.
Continue to build relationships in the market. The local market for renovating or building new projects is developed where sophisticated systems-based energy efficiency is delivered above the
standard equipment improvements. The IPC Custom Projects program has directly supported this market progress through (1) developing staff as trusted advisors to customers and trade allies, (2)

4 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
consistently delivering energy efficiency incentives that are near to initial estimates, (3) providing third-party verification engineering calculations to confirm energy efficiency, and (4) trusting the participants
to operate their systems with the attention to detail required to deliver energy savings.
Consider determining energy savings using a consumption analysis approach. The energy efficiency of complicated projects can be identified by analyzing interval consumption data of the facility
or through sub-metering. This approach will provide actual energy savings from projects without the complicated engineering spreadsheets to determine the impact of each successive adjustment. To deliver this approach, IPC would need to pre-plan the measurement and verification necessary to
collect operating data for pre-install and post-install periods and account for non-routine adjustments at the project locations. However, IPC's relationships and technical development in the local market provide the foundation to deliver energy savings on this type of program effectively. The analysis outcome will simplify the energy efficiency calculations and burden to provide the necessary documentation and deliver actual energy savings based on the participant's operating conditions and continuous improvement. However, the actual energy savings for the performance periods will increase
the variability of the claimed savings, which will decrease the program's ability to provide consistent estimates of energy savings from project inception to incentive payment.
1.3.2 Process Recommendations
The following process recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Update the Custom tab of the CIP logic model to account for recent program changes. A review of the logic model for the Custom Projects, Retrofits, and New Construction components of the CIP shows that the Custom Projects program follows the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes originally outlined quite well. And as planned, the program has intentionally shifted some measures from Custom to Retrofits, namely lighting. References to lighting in the Custom logic model should be reviewed, as most lighting measures have transitioned to the Retrofits portion of CIP.
Add a check box for new construction or equipment replacement to the Custom application. Collecting new construction or equipment replacement information for Custom projects was an output
of the application process in the logic model. This information on the application form will allow for distinct tracking of the type of projects receiving Custom incentives.
Continue to focus on efficient and effective communication between all parties providing Custom services. Based on feedback from program participants and the third-party engineers, communication regarding the program is working well and is expected to improve with the new Idaho Power staff. Relationships with customers built by Idaho Power staff and third-party engineers translate
into successful projects. Areas for improvement are minor but include:
• Increasing communication regarding the appropriate CIP path for projects. Customers may not initially determine the best path (Custom, New Construction, or Retrofits), so IPC staff and engineering contractors should continue to communicate closely on routing applications to the best-suited path. The logic model outlines the Pre-Approval stage is where this review and communication would most likely occur.
• Understanding of which CIP path and application to use can also be facilitated by the Idaho Power Energy Advisors and program staff. Idaho Power staff have developed trusted relationships with the clients that participate in the CIP programs, especially Custom Projects. Most Energy Advisors provide a great deal of support to their respective customers. However, when new staff joins Idaho Power as Energy Advisors, they may need to rebuild trust with

5 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
customers and be coached on the expected level of support. It is also the case that when customers have staffing changes, support and relationships will be rebuilt.
• Training for customers and contractors has been a valuable tool for Idaho Power in the past. Consider ways to support virtual training or education given the current environment. It will efficiently facilitate outreach to more customers and ensure they receive a consistent message.
It also allows new Idaho Power staff to build relationships with contractors and customers to strengthen communication.

6 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Custom Projects program provides monetary incentives and energy auditing services to help identify and evaluate potential energy-saving modifications or projects in new and existing facilities. The goal is to encourage commercial and industrial energy savings in Idaho and Oregon service areas. The Custom Projects program offers an incentive level of up to 70 percent of the project cost or 18 cents per
kWh for estimated first-year savings, whichever is less.
New to the Custom Projects program in 2020:
• Energy Management - Incentive of $0.025 per kWh saved up to 100% of eligible costs
• Leak Assessment and Fix of Compressed Air Leaks - $0.025 per kWh saved up to 100% of eligible repair costs.
• Leak Assessment and Fix of Underground Water Leaks - $1,000 per five miles of pipe for a third-party leak assessment and $0.18 per kWh saved up to 70% of eligible repair costs identified through leak assessment.
• Energy Scoping Assessments - up to $4,500 of engineering services is reimbursed for energy
scoping assessments. Three firms are available for this service.
Interested customers submit applications to Idaho Power for potential modifications that have been identified by the customers, Idaho Power, or by a third-party consultant. Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information, through audits if needed, to support the energy-savings calculations. Idaho Power currently has six third-party contractors assisting them with audits and savings estimates.
Once projects are completed, customers submit a payment application. Each project is reviewed by Idaho Power engineering staff or a third-party consultant to verify the energy savings methods and calculations. End-use measure information, project photographs, and project costs are collected through the verification process.
Idaho Power or a third-party consultant conducts onsite power monitoring and data collection before
and after project implementation to ensure energy savings are obtained and within program guidelines on many projects, especially the larger and more complex projects. If changes in scope take place on a project, Idaho Power recalculates the energy savings and incentive amount based on the actual installed equipment and performance. The measurement and verification reports provided to Idaho Power include verification of energy savings, costs, estimates of measure life, and any final recommendations. Table 2 shows the 2020 projects and annual energy savings by primary project
measure:
Table 2. PY2020 Custom Option Summary by Project Measure
Measure Number of projects kWh saved Percent of program savings PY2017 percent of program savings
VFD 15 32,217,243 34.3% 31.4%
Refrigeration 18 30,168,378 32.1% 16.7%
Lighting 89 12,566,042 13.4% 22.0%
Other 2 9,068,218 9.6% 2.4%

7 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Measure Number of projects kWh saved Percent of program savings PY2017 percent of program savings
Energy Management 11 2,202,821 2.3% 5.5%
Motors 1 1,895,391 2.0% 0.0%
Pump 12 1,815,041 1.9% 1.9%
HVAC 4 1,471,836 1.6% 1.1%
Compressed Air 9 1,083,535 1.2% 14.9%
Fans 3 876,224 0.9% 0.0%
Controls 5 641,988 0.7% 4.1%
Total 169 94,006,717
There were several very large VFD and refrigeration projects completed in PY2020. The projects, which saved between 7 million and 15 million kWh each, increased the VFD savings to 2.5 times higher than
reported in PY2017. Refrigeration savings increased to four times the size of PY2017 savings. The refrigeration measures increased their overall weight in the program while the lighting and compressed air decreased significantly as a share of the program1. It is worth noting that all new lighting projects were transitioned to prescriptive programs in the spring of 2020. Lighting projects that were pre-approved prior were allowed to complete their projects within the Custom program. Controls and energy management also decreased as a percentage of the program, but the impact of the percentage
adjustment was small on the overall performance of the program.
2.1.1 Marketing & Outreach
The Custom Projects program is promoted through IPC's existing account management and program management relationships with customers and trade allies, including engineers and equipment
providers. The Custom Projects program utilizes a cohort system to focus outreach and participation for specific customer types to provide more meaningful projects.
Custom Projects engineers and key account energy advisors engaged in the following outreach activities in 2020:
• In-person and virtual visits to large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers to conduct initial
facility walk-throughs, commercial/industrial efficiency program informational sessions, and training on specific technical energy-saving opportunities
• Sponsorship for the 2020 Idaho Rural Water Conference (in person) and the 2020 ASHRAE Technical Conference (virtual)
• Engineer presentations at the Cohort for Schools Mid-term and Final Workshops (virtual), Water Cohort Workshops (in-person and virtual), and the Eastern Oregon Operators Conference (virtual)
Cohort offerings are also driving a significant number of new projects in addition to increasing vendor engagement from the Streamlined Custom Efficiency (SCE) offering. Capital projects promoted or identified in strategic energy management offerings are reported and incentivized through other Idaho Power C&I programs, not as a cohort savings number. Current Cohort offerings include:

1 Lighting savings actually increased over PY2017; however, the overall program savings increased which reduced the percentage of the program metric.

8 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
• The Municipal Water Supply Optimization Cohort (MWSOC)
• Wastewater Energy Efficiency Cohort (WWEEC)
• Eastern Idaho Water Cohort (EIWC)
• Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI) Cohort for Schools
In 2020, Idaho Power contractors completed 11 scoping assessments for Idaho Power customers.
These assessments identified over 6,000 MWh of savings potential and will promote future projects.
Idaho Power presented large-format checks and publicized the events for interested customers, though interest was down during COVID-19. IPC also released a Water Supply Cohort Success Story brochure
and a new Custom Projects tip sheet for underground water leaks.
2.1.2 Tracking & Reporting
The Project Pre-Approval and Payment Applications for the Custom Projects program collect information from the program applicant, including the following:
• Account information including business name and account number, installation address, and contact information
• Project description
• Estimated project costs and savings
• Project timeline information (dates)
• Payee information, if different from the account holder
This information is stored in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In addition to the information above, the CLRIS database includes:
• Project ID
• Customer rate class and SIC code
• Application and approval dates with Idaho Power contacts
• Measure description and category
• Gross kilowatt-hour savings estimates for application, post-install, and final
• Project cost and incentive amounts
2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The evaluation activities conducted for the Custom Projects program are summarized in Table 3. Researchable issues and the sampling strategy for desk reviews and onsite visits are also discussed in this section.
Table 3. PY2020 Custom Projects program Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size Objective
Interviews with program staff and engineers 3 interviews Calls were completed to understand program design and delivery, obtain program staff perspective on program successes and challenges, and identify researchable issues. We included interviews with third-party engineering firms.
Review of program delivery and marketing materials
NA Materials such as marketing brochures, program manuals, outreach plans, and the program website were reviewed for messaging and communication benefits.

9 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Activity Sample size Objective
Tracking system review NA The tracking system was reviewed to determine if all
necessary inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient information for program review.
Desk reviews 27 projects Review project documentation and calculations to assess
the accuracy of savings claimed for each project.
This included reviewing the custom calculators and the project documentation for agreement with guidelines for custom projects.
Equipment verification 8 projects Although visits were originally planned, the evaluation team
determined virtual verification was warranted given increasing COVID-19 variants. Sites were sampled to verify the installation of measures and check assumptions used in savings calculations. Eight projects received verification
information by phone. We were unable to complete calls for two projects because of staff shortages and customers
preferring to receive a list of email questions. The emails were not returned sufficiently completed to be valuable for
impact evaluation.
Consumption Analysis verification 2 projects Two projects were selected for review of consumption data to identify energy savings.
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals
The following impact evaluation goals were addressed through the various evaluation activities:
• Determine and verify the energy (kWh, kW) impacts attributable to the 2020 program. Ex-ante savings estimates are determined using various sources, including internal/external engineering
calculations, the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed savings, and program technical reference manuals (TRMs).
• Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-electric impact estimates and ex-post realization rates attributed to each program for the 2020 program year through engineering analysis, desk review, and site visits.
• Document the status of the electronic documentation to meet the needs of energy efficiency calculations.
• Provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
The following process evaluation goals were addressed through the various evaluation activities:
• Determine if IPC follows program design and implementation best practices, including program mission, logic, documentation, management, training, and reporting.
• Gather feedback from both participants and trade ally experiences with the program to establish satisfaction levels and suggestions for improvements.
Investigate the integration of the Retrofits and New Construction tracks of the program and identify opportunities for better integration.

10 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION
The following sections provide a detailed review of the impact evaluation methodology, evaluation results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the five primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3. Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program Savings

Data Review and Sampling
Idaho Power program staff made the following files available to the Tetra Tech team for review.
General materials:
• Custom Project database for 2020
• Non-lighting Pre-Approval and Payment Application forms
• C&I EE Programs Policy and Procedures Manual 2020
Individual project files for sampled projects
• Applications
• Submitted project documents
• Savings estimation files/calculators/reports
• M&V reports, IPC internal reviews and reports, QA/QC notes, site inspection notes, and
photographs
Most of the review was based upon project files securely delivered to the evaluation team by an internet-based file-sharing site that required log-in access. The documentation downloaded included the necessary files except for the savings calculators. The calculators were delivered via the same online file-sharing site.
Table 4. PY2020 Custom Projects Sampling Summary
Sampling stratum
Service points (Unique qty.)
Total projects (Total qty.)
Sample service points
Sample projects (Total qty.)
Sample kWh savings percentage
Refrigeration 18 18 4 4 26.1%
VFD 12 15 6 7 25.4%
Other & Motors 3 3 2 2 9.6%
Lighting 43 89 3 4 2.0%
Data Review and Sampling Complete Desk Reviews Conduct Site Verification Verify kWh Savings

11 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Sampling stratum
Service points (Unique qty.)
Total projects (Total qty.)
Sample service points
Sample projects (Total qty.)
Sample kWh savings percentage
Energy Management Cohort
11 11 4 4 0.5%
Streamlined (Comp. Air, Fans, Pumps)
19 20 2 2 0.4%
Custom (HVAC, Controls, Comp. Air, Pumps)
12 13 4 4 0.8%
Total 1032 169 18 27 64.9%
Sampling was conducted to select individual projects within each sampling stratum. Once the project was sampled, additional projects or measures at the service point3 were incorporated into the sample, which increased the number of projects or measures sampled and the number of service points per sampling stratum. However, the overall sample of service points did not increase. This process resulted in the selection of 27 projects at 18 unique locations.
Two projects were required in the sample to meet the 90/10 precision requirements; a new construction food processing facility and an industrial facility with major renovations at a campus. Together, these participants account for 59% of the claimed program savings and will heavily weigh into the program's
overall precision and realization rate. The remaining projects were sampled randomly from each stratum.
Complete Desk Reviews
Tetra Tech staff conducted desk reviews of the sampled project files. This engineering documentation review was conducted to describe the project, confirm tracking data, identify key assumptions, and determine critical questions before the site verification phase.
Conduct Site Verification
The evaluation team provided Idaho Power Energy Advisors with 15 of the 18 service points, and they initiated outreach to the participants to introduce the evaluation team. Participants were asked to schedule a site verification for the week of January 10, 2022. Of the three sites not provided to energy advisors, one site was identified by Idaho Power that would not allow access for the project. The other two sites were removed to verify savings using a consumption analysis on the interval data.
Initially, sites were scheduled for in-person visits. But with COVID-19 variants increasing in prevalence and respect for the nature of the processing facilities that we were reviewing, Tetra Tech and Idaho Power decided to switch to virtual visits. A combination of Teams meetings, emails, and consumption analysis was used to verify the necessary information for each site. Tetra Tech engineers conducted each site verification, and Idaho Power staff were invited to attend the verification meetings.
The site verification inspectors interviewed the participant to identify the operation of the equipment and the most relevant specifications for the energy efficiency calculations. Verifying key operating
2 There are 103 unique service points for PY2020 program & 18 in the sample, but some fall into multiple categories and
therefore the sum of the column is more than the total shown.
3 Each service point is a facility located at a unique address.

12 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
assumptions and equipment performance confirms the installation and attention to the operating parameters. The evaluation inspectors asked key questions to confirm assumptions and determine
satisfaction with the program process.
Verify kWh Savings
The final step of the impact evaluation combined desk review and site verification information to provide
quality assurance for each reviewed project, describe any revisions to project assumptions and actual conditions, and update calculations to finalize evaluated savings.
The data gathered from the site verifications was reconciled with the information from the initial desk
reviews. Eight service points had a completed desk review and site verification. Two additional service points had a consumption analysis completed, and the remaining eight service points had only a desk review completed. We reviewed multiple measures and projects for service points that had more than one, resulting in the review of 27 measures as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. PY2020 Custom Project Review Summary
Sampling stratum Reviewed addresses Evaluated projects
Evaluated kWh percent of program Evaluated kWh savings
Refrigeration
18
4 26.1% 24,568,611
VFD 7 25.4% 23,905,463
Other & Motors 2 9.6% 9,068,218
Lighting 4 2.0% 1,887,894
Energy Management
Cohort 4 0.5% 443,768
Streamlined (Comp. Air, Fans, Pumps) 2 0.4% 351,519
Custom (HVAC, Controls, Comp. Air, Pumps) 4 0.8% 820,545
Total 18 27 64.9% 61,046,018
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the evaluation found that the Custom Projects portion of CIP had an impact realization rate of 99.8 percent with relative precision of 0.84 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval. The overall and measure category realization rates are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. PY2020 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects
Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate
Refrigeration 24,568,611 24,504,356 99.7%
VFD 23,905,463 24,084,356 100.7%
Other 9,068,218 8,862,126 97.7%
Lighting 1,887,894 1,876,531 99.4%
HVAC 504,749 504,749 100.0%
Energy Management 443,768 443,768 100.0%

13 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate
Fans 351,519 318,910 90.7%
Controls 189,265 188,425 99.6%
Pump 126,531 121,118 95.7%
Overall 61,046,018 60,904,339 99.8%
The overall realization rate for the 2020 Custom Projects is nearly 100 percent and less than one percent different from the previous evaluation. But we identified during the last evaluation that the
variability of the project realization rates was a concern and added risk to the program. This year's evaluation results are different because there is less variability in the individual project results, with most close to 100 percent.
3.2.1 Refrigeration
Refrigeration projects account for 32 percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included four projects which accounted for 40 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Two projects were retrofits of existing refrigerated facilities, and two were new construction low-temperature facilities.
Table 7 shows the realization rates for the savings claimed is nearly 100 percent for all projects.
Table 7. PY2020 Custom Refrigeration Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
1948 15,645,820 15,645,824 100.0%
2392 7,994,418 7,994,418 100.0%
2410 630,547 628,729 99.7%
2646 297,826 235,385 79.0%
Overall 24,568,611 24,504,356 99.7%
Food storage refrigeration requires many assumptions based upon the heat load of the food brought into storage and the individual setting of the refrigeration heat transfer fluids. Overall, the evaluation team found that the assumptions were conservative for the baseline condition. The post-install condition was well documented and supported by the site verifications completed.
Project ID 1948: This is a new construction potato processing facility that installed a quick freeze tunnel for freezing potato products. A total of six upgrades were completed to the refrigeration system of the
tunnel. This project had an email exchange of questions for verification, although the participant staff could not complete the responses because of staffing concerns. The calculations used Micro-AXCESS modeling software with historical utility data, equipment specifications, and spot logged data to support assumptions. The baseline model efficiency was consistent with standard ammonia refrigeration efficiency, which correlates to the use of conservative assumptions. The evaluation team agreed with the upgraded system model and the baseline assumptions, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2392: This is a new construction cold storage facility that completed a ground-up analysis to reduce the exterior wall space, install advanced controls, and use more efficient equipment. Overall, there are 11 energy efficiency improvements calculated. The evaluation team completed a consumption analysis to confirm the energy model of the facility. The evaluation team agrees with the modeled calculations as submitted, and the consumption analysis indicates that the energy savings calculations are accurate. It is noted that the interval consumption data showed an increase in energy consumption

14 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
12 months after project start-up, which equates to over a doubling of the refrigeration load if all equipment operations remained the same. The period outside the 12 months is typically outside the
performance period, so this was not incorporated in the evaluation savings. The evaluation team found a realization rate of 100 percent.
Project ID 2410: The site is a frozen food manufacturing facility that installed VFD on existing
compressors for an ammonia refrigeration system in Building #2 and replaced ceiling insulation and a condenser for an R22 refrigeration system in Building #1. A site verification was conducted and found one adjustment to plant operating hours. The ammonia system calculation used existing operating
setpoints and estimated compressor motor efficiencies and refrigeration load profiles to create an hourly energy model to estimate the system baseline energy consumption. The upgraded equipment efficiencies and controls setpoints were entered into the model to develop the post-install energy consumption. The EM&V review found that the calculator is acceptable. The R22 calculation is based on the heat load reduction of the building shell insulation improvement. The reduced heat load was applied to the R22 system estimated operating efficiency under plant operating load and non-operating
load. EM&V upgraded the model to use the TMY3 hourly weather data file. The combination of these two adjustments slightly reduced energy savings to 99.7 percent.
Project ID 2646: The site is a dairy plant that replaced an existing refrigeration condenser with a larger one, which reduced the required total energy usage of the condenser fans and compressors upstream of the condenser. A site verification was conducted and found no adjustments to the project documentation. The calculation used existing operating setpoints and estimated compressor motor efficiencies and refrigeration load profiles to create an hourly energy model to estimate the system baseline energy consumption. The upgraded equipment efficiencies and controls setpoints were entered into the model to develop the post-install energy consumption. The EM&V review found that the calculator is acceptable. However, the model included several incorrect cell calculation links. The evaluation adjusted the calculator links, leading to a 79 percent realization rate.
3.2.2 Variable Speed Drives
Variable speed drive projects account for 34 percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included seven projects which accounted for 39 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Two of the projects claimed 12 million and 8 million kilowatt-hours per year, respectively, and accounted for nearly
all the VFD claimed efficiency savings. The overall realization rate in Table 8 for the savings claimed is slightly higher than 100 percent.
Table 8. PY2020 Custom VFD Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
2508 12,069,452 12,064,156 100.0%
1961 8,856,181 8,856,181 100.0%
2314 1,800,796 1,800,796 100.0%
2345 766,959 992,554 129.4%
2583 152,529 111,123 72.9%
2454 148,542 148,542 100.0%
2405 111,004 111,004 100.0%
Overall 23,905,463 24,084,356 100.7%
Variable speed drive projects are installed in various locations and facility types. Overall, the
calculations provided document the existing and post-install operating conditions. However, market

15 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
partners who are infrequent contributors to the Custom Projects program completed several of the submittals. The results for these projects were more likely to have calculation adjustments. EM&V
found that the assumptions made were conservative for the baseline condition. The post-install condition was well documented and supported by the site verifications completed.
Project ID 2508: The project installed VFDs on pumps and fans at the new central utility plant (B39) and
the new R&D manufacturing facility (B51) at an industrial campus. A site verification call was attempted for this facility, although staffing shortages required that the verification questions be submitted through email. The email responses were not returned because of increasing staff shortages. The project was
expected to include VFDs on 9,116 horsepower of motors. The project started in 2018 and used the Idaho Power Technical Reference Manual (TRM) that was valid for that time, which included a prescribed value for VFDs installed in industrial facilities. This method was chosen due to its simplicity and its conservative nature. However, Idaho Power completed a third-party verification post-install to confirm the large savings amount was reasonable. This post-install identified a portion of motors was not installed and that the energy savings for a sample of the motors were reasonable. The evaluation
team agrees with the verification report. The evaluation team did identify two pumps that were smaller than 5 kilowatts, and therefore, were not eligible for the TRM incentive value. The small change reduced savings slightly, but the realization rate applied to the project is 100 percent.
Project ID 1961: The project was completed at a new construction potato processing facility with 888 motors that installed VFDs and supporting PLC controls, and high-efficiency gearboxes were installed on the potato transport equipment. A site verification call was attempted for this facility, although staffing shortages required that the verification questions be submitted through email. The email responses were not returned because of increasing staff shortages. The calculation assumed the hours of operation for processing and ventilation equipment and assumed that all motor requirements operate at a constant speed. The baseline assumed a conservative load factor, and the setpoints were measured during operation for the post-install condition. Some points were spot metered during
verification to confirm the actual energy use of key equipment. The evaluation team agrees with the calculations and assumptions, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2314: The project expanded the operation of a raw milk processing facility. The project
installed VFD on pumps throughout the facility. The evaluation team completed a consumption analysis on the interval consumption data from the facility to identify energy savings and consumption patterns matching the calculations. The calculation included daily hours in production, cleaning, and other
operating profiles. Each pump was matched to one of the operating profiles, and the measured VFD setting was applied.
The consumption analysis identified the consistent pattern of operation detailed in the calculation. It also found a significant increase in maximum kilowatt demand starting in 2020, indicating the processing rate is increasing. It was also noted that the daily shutdown for cleaning had become more defined increasing energy efficiency as the plant operated longer. The evaluation team is confident the energy savings calculated are conservative based on the long-term consumption data analyzed, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2345: The project installed VFDs on the 700 HP forced draft fan, and two 200 HP boiler feed water pumps at an industrial facility. The calculations used short-term monitoring to create an average load for the fan and pumps. This average load was multiplied by the two operating conditions to determine savings. The evaluation team utilized short-term monitoring to create an annual hourly load profile. The energy consumption was determined using the pump curve, and the resulting energy savings was higher than the ex-ante savings and resulted in a 129 percent realization rate.

16 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Project ID 2583: The project installed variable frequency drives (VFDs) on a total of eight pumps at a new construction well-pumping facility and booster pump facility for a city water department. The
evaluation team completed a site verification phone call and determined that the expected load for the pumping system has not yet been required. The booster station was just turned on in the last two months. The evaluation team did not adjust the expected load in the calculations because projections
are still on track for the municipality but are being realized slower than expected. The calculation used estimated pump curves to determine the pump shaft power for the water demand projection. The evaluation team adjusted the calculation to add the motor and VFD efficiency into the energy
consumption, removed a 0.95 multiplier that was adjusting for a future booster station, and reduced the number of days in the annual profile to 365. Overall, these adjustments resulted in a realization rate of 73 percent.
Project ID 2454: The site is an industrial food processing facility that upgraded emergency exhaust fans in the Ammonia Refrigeration Room by putting VFD and occupancy sensors on fans. A site verification found that the control system and equipment are operating as documented. The calculation identified
the difference between one fan operating 24 hours a day compared to an average of 1.25 hours per day when connected to the occupancy sensor. The second fan is considered for emergency use only in both models. The evaluation team agrees with the calculation, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2405: The site is an industrial food processing facility that added VFDs to fans and pumps associated with the roasted vegetable line. The site verification identified that this project is being removed and relocated to another food processing plant. The participant has already contacted Idaho Power to determine the best course of action of removing the project before the five-year term of the incentive agreement is compete. The evaluation team determined that the first-year savings are valid and evaluated as the processing line remains in place. The calculation measured actual VFD setpoints during operation to determine post-install calculation. The baseline was determined using the pumps at full power with an 80 percent load factor. The evaluation team agreed with the energy savings, and the
realization rate is 100 percent.
3.2.3 Other
The Other project category includes two projects accounting for 10 percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included two projects which accounted for 15 percent of the sampled
kilowatt-hours. The overall realization rate in Table 9 for the savings claimed is 98 percent.
Table 9. PY2020 Custom Other Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
1953 7,650,517 7,650,517 100.0%
2396 1,417,701 1,211,609 85.5%
Overall 9,068,218 8,862,126 97.7%
The other project category for projects included industrial water treatment. One project had some VFDs as a secondary measure that the evaluation team categorized in the Other category to keep them with
the main unit. Overall, the calculations provided document the existing and post-install operating conditions. One of the projects had an interactive effect that was not applied. The evaluation team did not complete site verifications for these projects; for one their staff were too busy and the other would
not allow anyone on site.
Project ID 1953: A new facility was constructed at a food processing campus that required well water to be treated for operations. A site verification call was attempted for this facility, although staffing

17 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
shortages required that the verification questions be submitted through email. The email responses were not returned because of increasing staff shortages. The evaluated savings documented the
assumptions and flows associated with the project's water reduction and wastewater treatment components. The baseline was developed using the operating profiles of two other similar facilities on campus. Data logging was conducted on the new facility to identify key energy consumption
components, including the aeration basin blowers and booster pumps. The energy savings was the difference between the measured energy consumption post-install and the baseline facility. The evaluation team agreed with the approach and calculation, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2396: The project expanded a raw water treatment system at an industrial facility. The project replaced an existing skid-mounted treatment system with a different treatment system type and increased the size by five times. The energy calculations found the energy savings from the skid-mounted systems based on an M&V period of parallel operation. Supplementary equipment energy efficiency improvements were calculated based upon the system's requirements. EM&V agrees with
the baseline and post-install measurements and documented assumptions. However, the calculation for pumps supporting the skid-mounted system used the baseline of higher pressure necessary for the old skid system, although the pressure reduction energy savings already accounted for the pressure reduction in the skid-mounted calculation. Adjusting the baseline operating pressure to match the new system requirements resulted in a realization rate of 86 percent.
3.2.4 Lighting
Lighting projects account for 13 percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included four projects which accounted for three percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. The projects sampled were located at three sites that completed at least one other non-lighting project. Table 10 shows realization rates for each project, with the total realization rate for lighting savings claimed at 99.4 percent.
Table 10. PY2020 Custom Lighting Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
2564 1,180,596 1,148,188 97.3%
2559 511,759 525,447 102.7%
2081 187,103 194,461 103.9%
1703 8,436 8,435 100.0%
Overall 1,887,894 1,876,531 99.4%
The lighting project category was included in the Custom Projects program because lighting upgrades were being completed at the same time as other projects. Idaho Power has transitioned all lighting projects to prescriptive programs at this point. Overall, the calculations provided document the existing and post-install operating conditions.
Project ID 2564: The retrofit replaced the lighting with DLC, or ENERGY STAR-qualified LED lighting at a food processing facility. A site verification call was attempted for this facility, although staffing
shortages required that the verification questions be submitted through email. The email responses were not returned because of increasing staff shortages. A total of 4,266 lighting fixtures were installed using a lighting inventory calculator and the assumed 8,760 hours per year. The evaluation team
determined that fourteen lighting models required an adjusted wattage which had the overall effect of reducing the energy savings. The realization rate is 97 percent.

18 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Project ID 2559: The retrofit replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting and controls at a hospital. The energy savings calculation used the 2018 Idaho Power Lighting Tool. The evaluation
team updated the lighting tool to use the 2021 version, which increased savings slightly with the same information. The realization rate is 103 percent.
Project ID 2081: The retrofit replaced interior metal halide lighting fixtures with DLC qualified LED
lighting fixtures at a food processing facility. A site verification call was completed, and the participant confirmed the baseline metal halide lighting fixtures from records and confirmed the current operation of the LED fixtures. The calculation used the Idaho Power Lighting Tool to determine savings. The
evaluation team adjusted one lighting fixture wattage to match the DLC Certification, which increased savings slightly and resulted in a realization rate of 104 percent.
Project ID 1703: The retrofit replaced interior T12 fluorescent lighting with DLC qualified LED lighting fixtures at a food processing facility. A site verification call was completed, and the participant confirmed the baseline T12 lighting from memory and confirmed the current operation of the LED fixtures. The calculation used the Idaho Power Lighting Tool to determine savings. The evaluation team
found that all lighting fixture wattages matched the DLC Certification. The resulting realization rate is 100 percent.
3.2.5 HVAC
HVAC projects account for one percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included one project, which accounted for less than percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 11 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 100 percent.
Table 11. PY2020 Custom HVAC Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 2096 504,749 504,749 100.0%
The HVAC project category includes a minimal number of custom projects. Most are routed through the
prescriptive program or categorized based on the VFD or Controls. Overall, the documentation supports the calculations.
Project ID 2096: The project installed a centralized chiller and cooling tower to replace an existing
central chiller and cooling tower and a series of distributed air-cooled chillers. The improvement increased the cooling efficiency but increased the distribution equipment's energy consumption, including chilled water pumps. The energy calculation was based on the load difference between a
baseline and post-install eQuest model. The model was calibrated to the 24-month historical consumptions, and the resulting chilled water load profile was used to calculate the energy savings difference between chilling systems. The Trane Chiller Plant Analyzer identified the energy use for the chillers, cooling towers, chilled water pumps, and condenser water pumps for both the baseline and retrofit conditions. The evaluation team agreed with the modeling, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
3.2.6 Energy Management
The energy management projects are part of the Water Supply Optimization Cohort (WSOC). These projects account for about 2 percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included four projects which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Three of the projects were in year 3 of participation, and one was in year 2 of the program. Table 12 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 100 percent.

19 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Table 12. PY2020 Custom Energy Management Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1968 243,184 243,184 100.0%
2662 88,670 88,670 100.0%
2659 86,993 86,993 100.0%
2654 24,921 24,921 100.0%
Overall 443,768 443,768 100.0%
The cohort offerings focus on changing the behavior of municipal departments to look at their operations, and future building plans to consider the energy consumption impacts of decisions. The participants interviewed by the evaluation team indicated that participation in the program had improved
their decision-making and operations within the department. Each participant tracks the energy consumed and gallons pumped/treated at various locations in their system. These values are tracked internally and delivered to Idaho Power implementers to calculate monthly energy savings based on the
baseline metric. Capital projects which create energy efficiency savings with Idaho Power projects are subtracted from the cohort results.
Project ID 1968: This project is a municipality that participated in the Water Supply Optimization Cohort
(WSOC). Participation started in early 2018. This city has nine groundwater wells with total annual use of approximately 1.3 billion gallons of water. The goal of the WSOC is to identify and implement energy savings projects related to the water supply distribution system in the city. The evaluation team completed a site verification call with the municipality and found that the energy savings are happening because of the process implemented through the cohort. They expect to continue to see improvement in the department's energy consumption and are continuously looking for more ways to improve. The calculations are completed by a third-party engineer who receives the monthly data. The baseline energy and water load were captured from 2016 and 2017. The cohort began measurement in 2018, and 2020 is the second year of participation. The list of improvements completed is reflective of the energy savings seen in the monthly metric (kWh/MG). The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2662: This project is a municipality that participated in the Water Supply Optimization Cohort
(WSOC). Participation started in 2016. This city has eight groundwater wells with total annual use of approximately 1.6 billion gallons of water. The goal of the WSOC is to identify and implement energy savings projects related to the water supply distribution system in the city. The calculations are
completed by a third-party engineer who receives the monthly data. The baseline energy and water load were captured from 2013 through 2015. The cohort began measurement in 2016, and 2020 is the third year of participation. The list of improvements completed is reflective of the energy savings seen
in the monthly metric (kWh/MG). The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2659: This project is a municipality that participated in the Water Supply Optimization Cohort (WSOC). Participation started in late 2015. This city has six groundwater wells with total annual use of approximately 960 million gallons of water. The goal of the WSOC is to identify and implement energy savings projects related to the water supply distribution system in the city. The calculations are completed by a third-party engineer who receives the monthly data. The baseline energy and water load were captured from 2013 through 2015. The cohort began measurement in 2016, and 2020 is the third year of participation. The list of improvements completed is reflective of the energy savings seen in the monthly metric (kWh/MG). This participant completed capital projects outside the cohort energy savings calculation, and IPC correctly handled those projects to ensure no overlap. The realization rate is 100 percent.

20 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Project ID 2654: This project is a municipality that participated in the Water Supply Optimization Cohort (WSOC). Participation started in early 2016. This city has five groundwater wells with total annual use
of approximately 135 million gallons of water. The goal of the WSOC is to identify and implement energy savings projects related to the water supply distribution system in the city. The evaluation team completed a site verification call with the municipality and found that the energy savings are happening
because of the process implemented through the cohort. They described the cohort as critical to incorporating new growth and operating efficiently when fire pumps are not on. They expect to continue to see improvement in the department's energy consumption and are continuously looking for more
ways to improve. The calculations are completed by a third-party engineer who receives the monthly data and operates two models (east and west). The baseline energy and water load were captured from 2013 through 20115. The cohort began measurement in 2016, and 2020 is the third year of participation. The list of improvements completed is reflective of the energy savings seen in the monthly metric (kWh/MG). The realization rate is 100 percent.
3.2.7 Fan
Fan projects account for less than one percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included one project, which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. The realization rate for the savings claimed is 100 percent, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13. PY2020 Custom Fan Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
2463 351,519 318,910 90.7%
The fan project category included a new construction building that required sophisticated ventilation. The project used an augmented potato storage energy calculator tool, a good tool for process systems requiring ventilation. However, the uncertainty around the unique operations of the facility led to lower savings.
Project ID 2463: The project was a new construction advanced bee storage facility that included several energy-efficiency upgrades. The calculations focused on the ventilation and climate control system and
were submitted as a streamlined application. The evaluation team completed a site verification call with the owner and identified that the expected operating conditions changed after operating the facility for two seasons. The number of bee colonies, storage season time estimates, and bee ventilation
requirements were updated to reflect actual site conditions, which resulted in decreased fan VFD and EEV savings. In addition, the evaluation team updated the weather data file to use the 2005 TMY3 from Burley Municipal Airport per the TRM directive. The combined effect of these adjustments resulted in a
realization rate of 91 percent.
3.2.8 Controls
Controls projects account for less than one percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included two projects which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table
14 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 99.6 percent.
Table 14. PY2020 Custom Controls Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
1722 178,310 178,310 100.0%
2069 10,955 10,115 92.3%

21 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
Overall 189,265 188,425 99.6%
The sampled controls projects included controls as part of upgrading other equipment. The projects were not solely control upgrades or commissioning. However, both project results rely heavily on the controls for energy efficiency. They could easily be categorized as another measure type. Regardless of categorization by the IPC team, the documentation supports the calculations.
Project ID 1722: The retrofit expanded the capacity of a wastewater treatment facility UV Disinfecting, by installing a second bank with increased controls to manage the flow and lighting concurrently. The energy efficiency is determined by calculating the energy intensity (kWh/mgd) for the existing and new UV lights and then multiplied by the average flow rate to get the final energy savings. The existing UV light energy intensity is calculated by taking the total energy consumption of the old UV lights and dividing it by the average daily flow rate in 2017. The retrofit UV light energy intensity is calculated from the short-term data logging of power draw from each UV bank for one month and dividing by the average daily flowrate for that time period. The energy savings intensity (kWh/mgd) difference is then
multiplied by the 2020 flow rate to achieve the ex-post energy savings. The evaluation team had minimal adjustments to the calculation, and the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2069: The site is a municipal sewer plant that upgraded the powered ventilation system by putting VFDs and occupancy sensors on exhaust fans. The calculation identified the difference between one fan operating 24 hours a day at full evacuation air changes compared to 50 percent of the air changes per hour when unoccupied and full air changes per hour when occupied. It is expected that
the facility will be occupied less than one hour per day. The evaluation team agrees with the calculation approach, although the pump affinity laws were applied without conservative factors. The evaluation team found that the unoccupied horsepower requirement is higher than expected, which reduces energy savings. The realization rate is 92 percent.
3.2.9 Pump
Pump projects account for two percent of the 2020 Custom Projects savings. The sample included one project, which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 15 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 96 percent.
Table 15. PY2020 Custom Pump Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate
2558 68,513 68,513 100.0%
2516 58,018 52,605 90.7%
Overall 126,531 121,118 95.7%
The pump applications were both submitted as streamlined applications. While both reviewed projects reduced the pump size in a retrofit application, one of the projects created savings primarily through a VFD. Although the project could be categorized, the energy calculation results worked well within the streamlined program. Overall, the documentation supports the calculations.
Project ID 2558: The project installed two 15 HP pumps with VFDs to provide a 12-story multifamily building with increased water pressure. This project was submitted as a streamlined application. The evaluation team completed a site verification with the participant representatives and building manager, which verified the pressure setting matched the documentation and that the pump hours appeared consistent with operations. Baseline energy consumption was developed from short-term monitoring of

22 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
the existing pump. The upgraded system consumption was also developed based on short-term monitoring. The evaluation team agreed with the calculation process and verified that the current
operation matches the short-term monitoring. Therefore, the realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 2516: The project replaced a 40 HP effluent pump at a municipal wastewater treatment plant with a 15 HP pump. This project was submitted as a streamlined application. Baseline energy
consumption was calculated by first conducting a linear regression on current and flow rate, dividing the daily flow rates into 12 bins, then counting the number of days/hours the old pump operated within each bin during 2018. The post-install file used the same bins with the pump curve to determine pump
efficiency and ultimately energy consumption of the new system under similar conditions. The evaluation team adjusted the calculation to determine the energy consumption in hourly intervals. The resulting calculation decreased savings to a realization rate of 91 percent.
3.3 REVIEW OF PY2017 IMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed IPC's progress against the recommendations made during the last impact evaluation of the 2017 program. The table below highlights IPC's actions to address each of the previous impact recommendations.
Table 16. PY2017 C&I Custom Projects Program Recommendations
Category Key finding and recommendation PY2020 implementation Status
Electronic Files and Calculators
Idaho Power should collect and file the Excel calculators.

The Custom Projects program transitioned well to fully digital files, although the third-party engineering
companies still hold the original files. All documents were easily accessible
by IPC staff and the third party.

Complete
Post-Install Verification The engineering team should identify customers for post-verification visits to discuss control settings and the potential
adjustment impacts.
The Custom Projects program implemented third-party verification for most projects in PY2020. The verification was well received by the
participants and captured the operating parameters or equipment
and controls after the initial start-up of the custom installation

Complete
Streamlined Applications The evaluation found that the assumptions for the streamlined projects resulted in more variation
from actual conditions than their more "custom" counterpart
projects. Idaho Power should continue to monitor the benefits of the process efficiency with the potential variation in savings
rigor.
The IPC Custom Projects program has continued to identify streamlined project types and transferred some
previously custom projects to the prescriptive program.
These efforts have decreased the administrative burden for some projects and eliminated custom program interaction with some
customer types.

Actively addressing
Cohort Program Continue close communications with Wastewater Cohort contacts. The cohort group expanded beyond the municipal wastewater departments in PY2017 to include municipal water departments.
Participants indicated that although

Complete

23 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Category Key finding and recommendation PY2020 implementation Status
communication with Idaho Power has decreased, they have a clear understanding of their objectives and can operate more independently. They also have a better understanding of when contacting
IPC staff is necessary. The adjusted communication protocols are working
well.
Calculation improvements
Use Regional Technical Forum (RTF) method for New Construction Baseline.

New Construction baselines are individually developed by the third-party verification partner or through the use of the updated TRM.
Baselines are more consistent and well documented.

Complete

Use rated capacity and wattage
for equipment.

Rated capacity was consistently used
in calculations

Complete
Consider requiring a pump curve submission for pumping projects. Pump curves were consistently documented and used in project
calculations.
Complete
Monitor specific dairy projects for adjustments to incoming milk temperature.
No dairy projects were reviewed in this evaluation.
N/A

24 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION
The following sections provide a detailed review of the process evaluation methodology, evaluation results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities.
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The process methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4. Each activity is explained below.
Figure 4. Process Evaluation Activities

Materials Review
Tetra Tech read the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Policies and Procedures
Manual dated January 2021. We also reviewed the program logic model developed in 2018 for the entire CIP at the time, including Retrofits, New Construction, and Custom Projects components.
Program staff interviews
Idaho Power staff responsible for the program delivery provided Tetra Tech staff with an overview of the program design, objectives, staffing, outreach, procedures, tracking, and achievements. Idaho Power program staff also responded to evaluation questions and provided requested materials.
Third-party engineer interviews
Idaho Power works with three external engineering firms to provide audits and M&V services for the C&I Custom component. We reached out to all three firms and completed interviews with two. The two firms we interviewed provide the bulk of the audits and M&V required for Custom projects.
Participant interviews
Once desk reviews were completed, participants were contacted for clarifications regarding the equipment they installed and to ask them a series of process questions. The process topics included (1) how they learned about Custom Projects, (2) who assisted them in scoping their projects and filling
out the application, (3) their satisfaction with several aspects of participation, (4) what they liked best about their experience, and (5) anything they would recommend improving about the program. We received feedback from ten participants through phone calls and emails.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Idaho Power follows program management best practices with a program manual and logic model developed for the CIP suite of programs. Communication with third-party engineering firms is working well, and IPC has developed strong relationships with both engineers and customers.
Materials Review Program Staff Interview Third-party Engineer Interviews Participant Interviews

25 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
4.2.1 Materials Review
Tetra Tech reviewed both the 2020 and 2021 versions of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Policies and Procedures Manual. The 2020 version was updated through November
of 2019, and the 2021 version was updated in January 2021. Edits to the manual included slight customer eligibility changes and equipment adjustments.
The program manual includes a good overview of all CIP offerings from Idaho Power. In addition, it
offers sufficient detail for each major component (Custom, Retrofits, and New Construction), such as pre-approval and payment application processes and inspection requirements. Other commercial offerings, including Energy Assessments, Energy-Saving Kits, Flex Peak, Green Rewind, and Technical
Training, are briefly described for the reader.
The IPC contact information and revision history sections are also beneficial to both internal utility and external partner and customer users. Other resources listed include approximately 25 organizations like
ASHRAE, ENERGY STAR®, and Integrated Design Labs.
The primary program manual sections include the following:
1. Program Overview - including eligibility requirements 2. Program Offerings - Retrofits, New Construction, Custom Projects, Additional Offerings 3. Steps to Participate - Lighting retrofits, Non-lighting retrofits, New Construction 4. Custom Projects - steps to participate 5. Energy Efficient Assessments 6. Inspections, Measurement and Verification 7. False Information 8. Pre-Approval 9. Satisfaction of Customers
10. Program Staff Contact Information 11. Commercial & Industrial Energy Efficiency Program Terms and Conditions 12. Other Resources
13. Review and Revision History
Our review of the CIP logic model developed in 2018 shows that the CIP's Custom component closely follows the program design and delivery steps laid out in the logic model. The major steps of (1) project
identification and outreach, (2) pre-approval applications, (3) IPC project review, (4) project implementation, and (5) customer final application, are all in line with the current program delivery as outlined in the program policies and procedures manual.
In addition, the short and long-term outcomes of the program are being realized. As mentioned in the impact evaluation section of the report, confirmed or adjusted energy savings are accurately tracked. We also found that another key outcome was realized. The outcome "measures are identified for
movement to prescriptive after sufficient project track record" has occurred with the shift of lighting measures to the Retrofits component of CIP.
Realizing these outcomes may require adjustments to outputs in other areas of the program logic model to update it to reflect current delivery practices. For instance, in the pre-approval application phase, IPC continues to enter pre-approval application information in CLRIS. However, lighting projects from the IPC lighting team may no longer be sent to Custom but be passed to Retrofits instead.
As part of the impact review process, we attempted to identify whether Custom projects were new construction or equipment replacement. It would be helpful to add a clarifying field to the Custom
Projects application to clearly identify the type of project. This information on the application form will

26 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
allow for distinct tracking of the type of projects receiving Custom incentives and facilitate communication with customers and engineers. We recommend updating the logic model’s Pre-approval
Applications output field.
Another output of the pre-approval application activity stage of the logic model was routing projects to the Retrofits or New Construction component of CIP if that was more appropriate. At this stage of the
application process, it would be beneficial to increase the amount of communication between IPC, third-party engineers, and customers to ensure all parties know where a program may be routed and how that will impact the services and incentives for the project. This funneling of projects is appropriate and
output of both the Custom and New Construction program pre-approval application processes. However, the third-party engineers mentioned it as one of the potential improvements in communication that could clarify project status.
4.2.2 Interview Engineers
We contacted the three engineering firms Idaho Power provided and completed interviews with two of them in November 2021. The two firms we interviewed understand their roles and responsibilities, conducting the bulk of the scoping assessments and M&V required for Custom projects.
These engineering firms bring existing relationships with Idaho Power customers, which facilitate the identification and support of Custom projects. Most Custom projects are the result of relationships with customers. The engineers mentioned that awareness of the CIP opportunities could improve, as some contractors and customers are unfamiliar with the incentive options. They know IPC account managers or energy advisors communicate with customers frequently and can update them on program offerings.
The engineering firms report having strong relationships with Idaho Power staff. They like the support they receive from IPC program staff and energy advisors and feel the communication will become even better with a few new staff on board. One area of communication that the engineers requested was regarding project routing between Custom, New Construction, and Retrofits. There was a bit of concern about customer confusion with different applications, but customers we spoke with did not mention any application confusion. Measures transitioning from Custom projects to Retrofits also create some
uncertainty, and engineers would welcome increased communication about those measures as well.
Engineering firms provide scoping audits with reports (SARs) for projects and feel these large scoping audits provide the best relationship with customers. For customer projects, they also provide energy
analysis reports (EARs) and final inspection reports (FIRs). Engineering firms report project status to IPC monthly and said that current changes to make check-in meetings more structured have been beneficial.
4.2.3 Interview Participants
After the desk reviews, as part of the site verification, Tetra Tech staff asked participants several process questions. The general topics included their experience with the third-party engineer or IPC support for their project, satisfaction with their program experience, what worked best for them, and
what they would improve about the process.
We gathered feedback from 10 Custom Project participants; three in the Capital region, two in the Canyon region, three in Southern, and two in Eastern. Feedback covered seven Energy Advisors and two Cohort participants.
Most of the ten participants who responded have long-standing relationships of about 10 years or more with Idaho Power; three of them for at least 15 years. Participants mentioned learning about the

27 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
program through various interactions with Idaho Power staff, but most commonly their Energy Advisor. Several companies also participate in other programs, such as Flex Peak or Retrofits. When asked
about their impression of the Idaho Power Custom Projects program compared with other Idaho Power programs, one participant explained the difference well:
The Custom program offers additional flexibility to address energy-efficient operations and
provides a mechanism to support unique aspects of industrial applications of technology. The
prescriptive programs are designed around limited scope and constrain the use to defined limits.
Support for determining the scope of the Custom projects came from a variety of sources. The two
cohort participants named Idaho Power and the third-party engineers as their primary supporters. Three participants identified their corporate engineers and partner contractors as most involved in the project scoping phase. Two more participants mentioned their corporate engineers and contractors but also indicated Idaho Power staff played a key role. One participant received help from their contractor and Idaho Power staff, while two others relied heavily on third-party engineering firms.
When it came time to apply for the program incentive, seven of the ten responding participants had
internal staff working on the application. A few of them also enlisted the assistance of contractors. One said the third-party engineer completed it for them. Six of the ten acknowledged receiving help from Idaho Power staff to complete their application correctly. Two participants mentioned that the Custom Projects applications require more work and assistance but are worth it and that support is easy to get.
Seven of the participants discussed the final inspection process with us. Six of them thought the inspections went well, while the seventh mentioned a few COVID-19 restriction challenges. Three of the participants said they made adjustments as a result of the inspection. The other three said no adjustments were needed.
We asked the participant to rate their satisfaction on a list of factors using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all satisfied and 10 is very satisfied. Participants rated their satisfaction with the Custom Projects program overall and specific items such as the incentive amount, application process, time to receive
the incentive, and support received. Average ratings across the responding participant were high. At least one participant rated all aspects a "10." A few others were very satisfied but mentioned that they do not give anything a rating of 10.
Table 17. PY2020 Custom Participant Satisfaction Response Summary
Factors Mean rating Count Minimum rating Maximum rating
Overall program satisfaction 8.8 10 7 10
Equipment or improvements eligible for the program 8.8 9 8 10
Incentive amount 8.8 9 7 10
Application process 8.3 8 5 10
Support received through the program 8.3 8 5 10
Time to receive incentive 8.1 8 5 10
Clarity of program requirements 8.1 8 5 10
One participant accounted for most of the "5" ratings. That participant felt they did not receive as much support as possible. However, it should be noted that there was a change in company staff in the early stages of planning the project, which likely affected the respondent's answers.

28 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
Nine of the ten participants have recommended the program to other companies. The tenth had not but would if the opportunity
arose. One participant said they even talked with other utilities about offering a similar type of program, and public works staff have been sharing their experience with other facilities.
The cohort feedback is slightly different from the other interviews because the participants are working to change their decision-making process to incorporate energy efficiency into all
decisions. The measure does not have a defined scope. The interview focused on how the decision-making within the department has changed as a result of participation.
The participants interviewed described the decision-making process after participation as completely different from before engagement with the program. Each held regular meetings with key operators and engaged staff to find continuous improvement opportunities. Each used the monthly metrics developed
by the program as a component of operating and planning decisions. Both indicated it is easy to get the municipality administration on board with projects and enjoyed the good press associated with Idaho Power press releases about the program participants.
Participants provided numerous reasons they liked the Custom Projects option from Idaho Power. One important activity a participant thinks IPC does really well is getting the estimates close to the actual incentive. In other locations, the incentive can be drastically reduced once the project is installed, leaving a bad taste and making it less likely for the participant to do the next energy efficiency project. IPC has always been close on the incentive, and he feels he is more easily able to justify projects because the incentive amount is not in question.
A couple of the participants found the accolades and acknowledgment of their participation were important in their industry or market sector. Others felt the partnership with Idaho Power was a definite
benefit to their business. And a few expressed appreciation for the incentives and support that allowed them to implement energy efficiency at their company. Below are comments regarding what participants liked most about the Custom Projects program:

Five of the respondents had no specific suggestions when we asked participants about one thing they would change about the Idaho Power Custom Projects program. The other five mentioned a variety of ideas:
The free annual scoping study is helpful in generating ideas. The detailed study gets a robust level of savings and costs. But there is an opportunity to detail out the M&V needed for the
Accolades
•IPC provides great PR for the City and specifically the Water Department
•It's a way to get project results recognized in a different path from the internal recognitions
Partnership
•At the beginning when I was meeting with other wastewater supervisors, operators, I enjoyed IPC sharing ideas with my peers
•Simplicity, great service, great communication, and couldn't ask for a better partner•The one-on-one interaction with the IPC team and their support services
Incentives & Support
•Getting money for putting in the correct equipment
•Getting the check and working with IPC to make the justification•Impressed with how they worked with Condo/HOA organizations to make the projects happen. It can make the difference between a go or no go decision for these customers
“I work with lots of other utility DSM programs in my position. I feel that Idaho Power is the top utility I work with.” Custom Participant

29 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2020 Evaluation Results. February 11, 2022
verification - because it is something that may easily be incorporated during design or installation, instead of coming back later and hooking on a meter to measure things.
Maybe more involvement from Idaho Power (support and clarity about the program). An Idaho
Power webinar on the procedural process of incentives would be helpful (how to put together the specs/design/application).
A walk-through with Idaho Power or engineering staff would be helpful and getting detailed
audits on likely projects.
Improve access to additional measures that include considerations for CO2 reduction and
environmental improvements. Programs that address pure KWH reductions regardless of the
technology used to reduce the load. Addition of microgrid options and incentives for industrial and commercial operations.
When there are new developments being considered, can the City pull in the Idaho Power
program so the utility staff can work with the developer engineers to integrate the water system? The City departments take over utility systems once the development is finished but we don't
get a lot of input to the design and coordination - so the advanced system energy efficiency
focus that the City uses is not applied.
I would like Idaho Power to get involved in public works and provide their level of service to that
department.

Idaho Power Company

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program
2021 Impact Evaluation Results

February 14, 2022

ii
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel [phone] | Fax [phone]
tetratech.com

©2022 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

iii
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Tracking and Reporting ..................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Evaluation Overview .................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Data and Sampling ............................................................................................................ 5
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Program Staff Interview ..................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Program Documentation and Tracking Review .................................................................. 6
3.1.3 Baseline and Load Reduction Calculation ......................................................................... 7
3.1.4 Comparison of Results and Review of the Analysis Process ............................................. 7
3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................... 7
APPENDIX A: 2021 CLAIMED AND EVALUATED REALIZATION RATES .................................... 16

iv
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Program Average Demand Reductions and Realization Rates from 2018 to 2021, .................. 2
Table 2. 2021 Claimed and Evaluated Realization Rates per Event* ..................................................... 2
Table 3. Flex Peak Program Impact Evaluation Activities ...................................................................... 5
Table 4. Flex Peak Events in 2021 ........................................................................................................ 6
Table 5. 2021 Season Realization Rates per Participant ..................................................................... 10
Table 6. Discrepancies Between Claimed and Evaluated Average Demand Reductions ..................... 15
Table 7. 2021 Claimed Realization Rates per Participant .................................................................... 16
Table 8. 2021 Evaluated Realization Rates per Participant .................................................................. 21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Process for Verifying Program Load Reductions ..................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Numbers of Participating Sites by Nominated Load Reduction Group ..................................... 8
Figure 3. 2021 Claimed and Evaluated Average Demand Reduction and Max Average Demand Reduction Achieved per Event ............................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Claimed and Evaluated Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Group ..................... 10

v
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2021 impact evaluation of the Idaho Power Flex Peak program; this evaluation effort would not have been possible without their
help and support.
We would like to thank Chad Severson, Zeke VanHooser, Kathy Yi, and Quentin Nesbitt of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated
in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team included the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Najoua Jouini,
Sam Meisterman, and Laura Meyer.

1
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report covering the evaluation of 2021 program impacts for the Flex Peak program. This report section consists of a summary outlining the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. The program and evaluation are described in Section 2, and the program's impact evaluation is detailed in Section 3.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Idaho Power has operated the Flex Peak program since 2015. It 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.
The program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility. Customers with
the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kW are eligible to enroll in the program. Participants receive notification of a load reduction event two hours before the start of a peak event, and events last between two to four hours.
The program is delivered by Idaho Power staff. Idaho Power energy advisors communicate with current participants and interested customers to encourage enrollment. The Flex Peak opportunity is also included in C&I Energy Efficiency Program collateral and outreach.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Tetra Tech conducted several evaluation activities to address the impact evaluation goals. The evaluation goals included reviewing program documentation and meter data, verifying claimed load reduction, discussing any discrepancies, and identifying ways Idaho Power can improve the program analysis process.
The evaluation activities started with program documentation and tracking review, followed by baseline and load reduction calculations, a comparison of results, and a review of the analysis process.
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, Tetra Tech's opinion is that the Flex Peak program operated effectively in 2021, resulting in considerable load reductions. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Idaho Power has effectively retained most Flex Peak participants (Table 1). Participation slightly decreased in 2021; Idaho Power had 139 sites from 61 customers enrolled in the program in 2021, compared to 141 sites from 62 participants enrolled in 2020 and 145 sites from 64 participants enrolled in 2019.
The average nominated demand reduction outlined in Table 1 represents the load reduction committed averaged across the season events and customers. The average demand reduction is the load reduction achieved averaged across the season events and sites. The max average demand reduction represents the highest hourly average demand reduction achieved for the season. The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction achieved (average demand reduction) versus the amount of load reduction committed (average nominated demand reduction).
In 2021, the Flex Peak program achieved a realization rate of 78 percent based on a nominated demand reduction average across five events of 29 MW with the max season nomination of 36 MW.

2
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
The realization rates were higher in 2021 than 2020 as the average nominated demand reductions
were lower across all events. Similar to the 2020 season, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the event performance and realization rates, limiting customers' operations and their ability to reduce load.

Table 1. Program Average Demand Reductions and Realization Rates from 2018 to 20211,2
Program Season Customers enrolled Sites enrolled
Average nominated demand reduction
(MW)
Claimed average demand reduction (MW)
Claimed max average demand reduction (MW)
Claimed program realization rate
(%)
2018 140 65 29.4 26.3 27.3 89.5%
2019 145 64 35.6 27.5 28.8 77.2%
2020 141 62 35.9 23.2 23.7 64.6%
2021 139 61 29.0 22.6 30.6 77.9%
The High 3 of 10 baseline method with additive Day-of-Adjustment (DOA) was utilized to verify curtailment reductions and realization rates. Tetra Tech found that Idaho Power accurately applied the method with minor discrepancies. The differences between claimed to evaluated realization rates are minor and mostly attributed to different rounding practices.
Table 2. 2021 Claimed and Evaluated Realization Rates per Event*
Event date Event timeframe
Nominated demand reduction (kW)* Claimed realization rate (%) Evaluated realization rate (%)
June 28 4-8 p.m. 26,319 99.9% 99.3%
July 16 4-8 p.m. 27,469 67.6% 67.4%
July 26 4-8 p.m. 25,669 65.0% 64.9%
July 29 4-8 p.m. 25,669 74.6% 74.7%
August 12 4-8 p.m. 27,069 82.6% 82.2%
Average 26,439 77.9% 77.7%
* The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction achieved (average demand reduction) versus the
amount of load reduction committed (average nominated demand reduction).
Through the impact evaluation activities, Tetra Tech has identified the following recommendations for
consideration by Idaho Power.
• Continue using the current baseline calculation methodology. Idaho Power uses the High 3 of 10 baseline approach with additive DOA capped at 20 percent. The baseline is calculated for each event hour for accuracy. Based on the benchmarking study conducted by Tetra Tech, Idaho Power's load reduction calculation approach follows industry best practices; it falls within the bounds of methodologies recommended by regional transmission organizations (RTO) and independent system operators (ISO).

1 2018–2020 values are extracted from Idaho Power’s Flex-Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Reports.
2 The reductions in this table include 9.7 percent system losses. The data and results for the rest of the report are at the meter level and do not include system losses.

3
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
• Increase accuracy of calculations through consistent and transparent rounding practices. Minor discrepancies in load reduction calculations resulted from inconsistent rounding practices and rounding occurring at the early steps of the calculations. While rounding
differences create only minor discrepancies in calculations, the differences have the potential to sum to a level that creates confusion or doubt. Applying a standard rounding practice and documenting it will reduce the burden on Idaho Power and others using the calculation results. Tetra Tech recommends that rounding occurs at the last step of the calculation process.
• Continue streamlining the load reduction analysis process. The current process for
calculating load reductions is completed through multi-spreadsheet files per customer with one calculation sheet per meter, which can be time-consuming and prone to errors. Idaho Power is developing a SAS script to efficiently produce the same results and limit human error. The SAS script was tested in 2021 using the 2020 meter data. Tetra Tech supports Idaho Power's decision to automate and streamline the calculation process and recommends thorough documentation of the analysis steps and assumptions.
• Establish data validation and quality control protocols. Idaho Power currently excludes negative values and error codes from the load reduction calculations. In all calculations, hours
are treated as 0 kW where no curtailment was achieved. Tetra Tech recommends that Idaho Power documents rules for handling errors, missing data, and other data validation steps to enhance transparency and allow for repeating calculation steps and results. Idaho Power can
describe how any missing data points or data entry errors are addressed and document what was missing, corrected, or when erroneous data were changed from the original data for analysis purposes. Any data that are ultimately removed or changed from the original data set
should be annotated with the assignable cause.
• Continue working with customers to refine their nominated load reduction. Idaho Power
has been effectively retaining most of its Flex Peak participants. While Idaho Power had typically achieved realization rates of 85 percent or greater in pre-COVID-19 pandemic seasons, those numbers were reduced to 65 percent in 2020 and 78 percent in 2021. As a lesson learned
from the COVID-19 pandemic, Idaho Power can revisit the nominations for each customer (especially the 51–200 kW nomination group) to align them closer with realistic reduction opportunities.

4
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Idaho Power has operated the Flex Peak program since 2015. It 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. Along with Idaho Power's other DR programs— Irrigation Peak Rewards and the Residential A/C Cool Credit Program—the program supports Idaho
Power in reducing generation and transmission resources and delaying the need to build supply-side resources.
The program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility. Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kW are eligible to enroll in the program. Participants receive notification of a load reduction event two hours before the start of the peak event, and events last between two to four hours. The parameters of the program are in Schedule 76 in
Oregon and Schedule 82 in Idaho and include the following:
• A minimum of three events will occur each program season (June 15 to August 15).
• Events can occur any weekday, excluding July 4, between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m.
• Event duration is two to four hours and up to 15 hours per week, but no more than 60 hours per program season.
• Idaho Power will notify participants two hours before the initiation of an event.
• If prior notice of an event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose to cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes before the start of the event.
Program rules allow weekly opt-out options for enrolled customers. Each customer can submit a Flex Peak Opt-Out Request Form and, therefore, is not expected to provide any load reduction during that week. The site is automatically re-instated in the program the following week unless an additional opt-
out request is submitted.
2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach
Idaho Power energy advisors communicate with current participants and interested customers to encourage enrollment. The Flex Peak opportunity is also included in C&I Energy Efficiency program collateral and outreach.
2.1.2 Tracking and Reporting
Idaho Power collects hourly advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) data for almost half of the Flex Peak program participants and hourly MV90 data for the other half. Usage data is collected from 6/1/2021 to 8/15/2021 for all participants. The data is tracked by device location since participants may enroll multiple meters in the program.
Idaho Power provides participants with post-event usage reports showing hourly baseline, actual usage, and load reduction. The information assists participants in refining their nomination for future events. The data could be used to determine which participating sites may provide more load reduction
or need to change their reduction strategy if nomination amounts were not achieved.

5
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Idaho Power calculates load reductions and realization rates for each site and event. Load reductions during events are calculated by comparing them to a baseline calculated using a ten-day period. The
baseline is the average kilowatt-hour of the highest energy usage days during the event availability time (2–8 p.m.) from the highest three days out of the last ten non-event, non-holiday weekdays. Once the original baseline is calculated for each site, an adjustment is included in the methodology called the
Day-of-Adjustment (DOA) that is used to arrive at the adjusted baseline.
2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The Flex Peak program was last reviewed for impacts by a third-party in 2015 and 2016 and is reviewed internally on an annual basis. The following impact evaluation goals were outlined in the 2021
RFP and were addressed through the various evaluation activities:
• understand the program operations and impact calculation,
• calculate demand impacts attributable to the 2021 summer program using Idaho Power's current High 3 of 10 baseline methodology with DOA, and
• provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and accuracy of future demand response calculations.
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities
The evaluation activities for the Flex Peak program are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Flex Peak Program Impact Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size Objective
Interviews with program staff 1 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program staff perspective on program successes and
challenges. Identify researchable issues.
Review program materials N/A Review documentation as needed to provide context to load reduction calculations, meter data, and event data.
Calculate baseline and load
reductions
2021
participants
Evaluate the adoption for each customer and each site, the impact as sites are aggregated, and the reduction over the five events.
2.2.2 Data and Sampling
Idaho Power program staff made the files outlined below available to the Tetra Tech team for review. Additional files were requested and received as necessary to complete the impact evaluation for the
Flex Peak program.
• Program documentation: Application, Nomination Change Request, Opt-out Request
• Nomination amount for each device location and event
• Flex Peak time mapping and event summaries
• 2021 Flex Peak customer list
• Participant meter data:
o AMI data, hourly for 66 sites from 6/1/2021 to 8/15/2021, and
o MV90 data, hourly aggregate reading for 76 sites from 6/1/2021 to 8/15/2021.
The Flex Peak calculations were conducted using the full set of 2021 participants.

6
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
Idaho Power had 61 customers with 139 sites enrolled in the program in 2021, and they called five events during the program season. The table below shows the event dates and timeframes. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for all events.
Table 4. Flex Peak Events in 2021
Event date Event timeframe
6/28/2021 4 p.m. - 8 p.m.
7/16/2021 4 p.m. - 8 p.m.
7/26/2021 4 p.m. - 8 p.m.
7/29/2021 4 p.m. - 8 p.m.
8/12/2021 4 p.m. - 8 p.m.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities (Figure 1). Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 1. Process for Verifying Program Load Reductions

3.1.1 Program Staff Interview
The first step in evaluating the Flex Peak program was to discuss the program design and performance with Idaho Power staff during the kick-off meeting on September 13, 2021. The meeting helped Tetra Tech better understand the program design and delivery, discuss program successes and challenges, and identify and prioritize researchable questions for the evaluation. Regular check-in meetings were held to report progress, and scheduled ad hoc meetings were held to clarify inconsistencies.
3.1.2 Program Documentation and Tracking Review
Once we had background on the Flex Peak program from staff, we reviewed the program documentation and tracking system provided by Idaho Power. Idaho Power supplied the tracking system to the evaluation team in separate Excel spreadsheets. As described in Section 2.2.2, the provided spreadsheets included information about the date and time of the events, participating customers and their kilowatt-hour nomination amount for each event, MV90 and advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI) hourly interval data for the summer season, and individual meter numbers and identification numbers. Idaho Power also provided summary spreadsheets of the load reduction calculations and a sample of calculation sheets that show the calculation steps. Tetra Tech reviewed
the data and methods by which Idaho Power calculated load reduction, including (1) analyzing interval
Interview program staff Review program tracking
Calculate baseline and load reduction
Comapre results and review analysis process

7
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
meter data, (2) the calculation approach used to develop individual participant load reductions, and (3) assessing data from the program tracking system. For the Flex Peak program, each participant had its
own Excel workbook developed to estimate the baseline conditions, allowing for individual meters to be used to develop program load reduction, with the program load reduction being the sum of participant load reductions.
3.1.3 Baseline and Load Reduction Calculation
Data aggregation and validation were completed before calculating the baseline and load reduction for each event hour and meter. The data provided by Idaho Power was combined and matched using the meter number. Missing information was requested and verified with Idaho Power to ensure a complete
and accurate dataset was used in the baseline and load reduction calculations. Any negative values and error codes were excluded from the load reduction calculations to replicate Idaho Power's approach. Hours where no curtailment was achieved are treated as 0 kW in all calculations.
The baseline methodology utilized by Idaho Power in 2021 is the same methodology utilized in previous seasons (High 3 of 10 baseline method). The baseline is calculated using a ten-day period, representing the average kilowatt-hour of the highest energy usage days during the event timeframe (2–8 p.m.) from the highest three days out of the last ten non-event non-holiday weekdays. Individual baselines are calculated for each event hour and meter. Once the original baseline is calculated, an adjustment is applied to arrive at the adjusted baseline (additive the Day-of-Adjustment (DOA)).
As described in Section 4, adjustments are used to more accurately represent load conditions on the event day. Adjustments are used when the load is lower or higher than the historical data, 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 kilowatt-hour and the average curtailment day kilowatt-hour during hours 2-3 before the event start. The DOA is calculated as a flat kilowatt-hour and is applied to all baseline hours and capped at ±20 percent of the original baseline kilowatt-hour. The DOA is symmetrical, having an upward or downward adjustment to the baseline, and is applied to the original baseline kilowatt-hour for each meter for each
hour during the event.
Tetra Tech utilized the same baseline method with additive DOA to calculate load reduction for participating sites of all five events in the 2021 season.
3.1.4 Comparison of Results and Review of the Analysis Process
Tetra Tech verified whether the evaluated load reduction and claimed load reduction match as a last step in the impact evaluation. When discrepancies were identified, Tetra Tech worked closely with Idaho Power to identify root causes for the differences. This step and the previous steps helped shape the recommendations provided by Tetra Tech to streamline the program analysis process.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Using the High 3 of 10 baseline method with DOA, Tetra Tech developed a model to calculate the load reduction for each participating site and event. Idaho Power called five events during the 2021 program
season; on June 28, July 16, July 26, July 29, and August 12.
Each site or meter had a committed or "nominated" load reduction established before the program season. In 2021, participants had a committed load reduction of 36 MW at the start of the season. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, participation has been maintained with a slight decrease in

8
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
participating sites; Idaho Power had 139 sites from 61 customers enrolled in the program in 2021, compared to 141 sites from 62 participants enrolled in 2020.
In 2021, the nominated site load reduction varied from 5 kW to 3000 kW. As Figure 2 shows, the nomination groups with the most sites were in the 0–50 kW and 51–200 kW ranges, accounting for approximately 37 percent of the sites each.
Figure 2. Numbers of Participating Sites by Nominated Load Reduction Group

Figure 3 shows how similar the average demand reduction and maximum average demand reduction that Idaho Power and Tetra Tech calculated for each of the five curtailment events. The maximum average demand reduction achieved ranged from a low of 18.4 MW for the July 26 event to a high of 27.7 MW for the June 28 event. The July 26 event's average of 16.7 MW reduction achieved a
realization rate of 65 percent, while the June 28 event's average of 26.1 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 99 percent. The five events had an average realization rate of 78 percent combined.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
2019 2020 2021

9
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Figure 3. 2021 Claimed and Evaluated Average Demand Reduction and Max Average Demand Reduction Achieved per Event3

The realization rates were higher in 2021 compared to 2020 as the average nominated demand reductions were lower across all events. Similar to the 2020 season and as noted in Idaho Power's 2020 End-of-Season report, the event performance and realization rates were significantly reduced due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on customers' operations and ability to reduce load. Typically,
Idaho Power had achieved realization rates of 85 percent or greater in seasons before the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on reduction results as many customers could not participate during curtailment events. In addition, many national account big box stores and
HVAC-dependent businesses could not curtail load due to increased outside air requirements and using more energy to meet air quality requirements within facilities.
Figure 4 represents the realization rates achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all five
events. The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction achieved (average demand reduction) versus the amount of load reduction committed (average nominated demand reduction).
Each site's average load reduction (across five events) was divided by its average nomination across the five events and then grouped by size to calculate the results. The figure shows that the sites with the largest nominated load reduction, 501+ kW, achieved the highest average realization rate across the five events at 85 percent. The 501+ kW group had the lowest portion of sites enrolled in the
program, totaling nine sites, accounting for seven percent of total enrolled sites. The smallest nomination class, 0–50 kW, was a close second with an average realization rate of 84 percent.

3 Reductions are at the meter and do not include system losses of 9.7 percent.
26.3
18.6
16.7
19.1
22.4
20.6
27.9
20.6
18.5
21.0
23.5 22.3
26.1
18.5
16.7
19.2
22.2
20.6
27.7
20.6
18.4
21.0
23.5 22.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
June 28 July 16 July 26 July 29 August 12 Average
Claimed Average Demand Reduction (MW)Claimed Max Average Demand Reduction (MW)
Evaluated Average Demand Reduction (MW)Evaluated Max Average Demand Reduction (MW)

10
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
The 0–50 kW group had the largest portion of sites enrolled in the program, totaling 51 sites, accounting for 37 percent of total enrolled sites. The second smallest class, 51–200 kW, also had 51
sites enrolled; however, it achieved the lowest average realization rate of 47 percent. The 201–500 kW group had 26 sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 75 percent.
The trend with the smallest and largest groups performing above the middle segments aligns with
results from previous seasons.
Figure 4. Claimed and Evaluated Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Group

Table 5.shows the 2021 claimed and evaluated season realization rates at each site. The realization rate represents the percentage of load reduction achieved (average demand reduction) versus the amount of load reduction committed (average nominated demand reduction) averaged across the five
curtailment events. The number of sites for participating customers varied between 1 site or meter to 16 sites or meters. Realization rates for each event are detailed in Appendix A.
Table 5. 2021 Season Realization Rates per Participant
Site number Claimed season realization rate Evaluated season realization rate
1 51.2% 51.2%
2 31.0% 30.9%
3 1.9% 2.1%
4 20.8% 23.0%
5 69.5% 69.5%
6 71.6% 71.7%
7 50.9% 50.8%
8 76.9% 76.8%
9 144.0% 144.0%
10 16.0% 15.9%
11 117.0% 116.9%
84.0%
48.0%
74.6%
84.7%83.8%
46.9%
74.5%
84.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Claimed Average Realization Rate Evaluated Average Realization Rate

11
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number Claimed season realization rate Evaluated season realization rate
12 48.6% 49.7%
13 17.2% 17.4%
14 19.5% 19.4%
15 5.0% 4.2%
16 69.4% 69.7%
17 56.0% 58.3%
18 49.0% 48.7%
19 116.9% 116.8%
20 77.0% 76.9%
21 164.0% 163.9%
22 36.3% 36.2%
23 0.3% 0.1%
24 10.9% 10.7%
25 75.6% 75.5%
26 119.5% 120.0%
27 23.8% 24.7%
28 61.2% 60.9%
29 219.4% 219.5%
30 1.2% 1.9%
31 1.0% 4.1%
32 4.0% 3.4%
33 6.0% 4.1%
34 29.0% 32.8%
35 21.2% 21.4%
36 8.1% 8.1%
37 2.8% 2.7%
38 19.5% 19.5%
39 116.5% 116.6%
40 271.1% 271.3%
41 108.6% 108.6%
42 228.2% 226.2%
43 157.6% 157.5%
44 29.3% 29.4%
45 48.9% 48.9%

12
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number Claimed season realization rate Evaluated season realization rate
46 13.2% 13.2%
47 36.6% 36.6%
48 75.9% 75.9%
49 1.6% 1.6%
50 30.1% 30.1%
51 30.0% 29.9%
52 32.3% 32.4%
53 30.3% 28.6%
54 28.6% 28.4%
55 75.8% 75.8%
56 19.5% 19.1%
57 67.5% 67.6%
58 163.0% 163.0%
59 70.6% 70.7%
60 141.9% 141.9%
61 16.3% 16.4%
62 132.8% 132.8%
63 142.1% 142.1%
64 769.4% 769.5%
65 23.6% 23.4%
66 7.3% 7.3%
67 13.0% 12.8%
68 17.1% 17.0%
69 6.3% 6.4%
70 14.9% 14.6%
71 8.8% 8.8%
72 179.4% 180.1%
73 49.3% 30.2%
74 18.5% 18.3%
75 166.9% 166.9%
76 38.4% 38.6%
77 27.4% 27.5%
78 122.4% 122.8%
79 87.9% 88.0%

13
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number Claimed season realization rate Evaluated season realization rate
80 39.0% 39.1%
81 58.4% 57.9%
82 99.5% 99.5%
83 45.3% 44.7%
84 32.1% 31.6%
85 19.3% 19.3%
86 35.8% 33.5%
87 54.3% 54.0%
88 6.5% 6.5%
89 17.8% 17.7%
90 10.9% 11.0%
91 5.2% 5.3%
92 2.6% 2.6%
93 101.3% 101.3%
94 38.6% 38.8%
95 84.0% 84.0%
96 8.2% 8.1%
97 103.2% 103.2%
98 70.0% 69.7%
99 20.3% 20.2%
100 136.8% 121.3%
101 67.2% 67.2%
102 0.9% 0.9%
103 11.3% 12.1%
104 7.3% 7.4%
105 5.9% 5.9%
106 18.7% 14.7%
107 87.7% 87.7%
108 64.4% 64.3%
109 16.1% 16.0%
110 54.5% 54.5%
111 6.9% 6.9%
112 36.4% 36.4%
113 22.4% 22.7%

14
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number Claimed season realization rate Evaluated season realization rate
114 69.5% 69.1%
115 128.1% 93.5%
116 64.8% 64.9%
117 127.2% 127.1%
118 101.7% 101.7%
119 143.9% 143.5%
120 124.7% 121.4%
121 161.3% 161.5%
122 233.7% 234.0%
123 206.8% 206.2%
124 104.3% 104.5%
125 143.5% 143.4%
126 168.6% 168.1%
127 186.2% 185.9%
128 93.4% 92.7%
129 67.3% 66.9%
130 101.8% 102.2%
131 35.3% 41.6%
132 11.3% 11.3%
133 39.3% 38.7%
134 100.6% 100.4%
135 39.5% 39.3%
136 6.1% 6.1%
137 67.8% 67.7%
138 119.4% 119.1%
139 1.2% 1.2%
Most of the differences in realization rates between the claimed and evaluated realization rates are attributed to different rounding practices; however, Tetra Tech identified discrepancies in the results of seven sites or meters resulting from either clerical errors or miscalculation, as outlined in Table 6. Five of the seven discrepancies produced the highest differences between claimed and evaluated demand reductions (site numbers 73, 115, 106, 4, and 100).
The clerical error risk is an issue that Idaho Power staff are aware of and have been taking steps to address. At the time of the evaluation, Idaho Power was already making progress on code-based analysis that would eliminate the same type of carry-through error we found for the five cases
mentioned below.

15
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Table 6. Discrepancies Between Claimed and Evaluated Average Demand Reductions
Site number Event date
Claimed average demand reduction (kW)
Evaluated average demand reduction (kW) Difference (kW) Reason for discrepancy
73 August 12 111.3 7.4 103.8 Clerical
115 June 28 139.8 32.6 107.1 Clerical
106 June 28 53.3 6.2 47.0 Clerical
4 July 29 126.5 166.1 -39.6 Clerical
100 July 16 40.0 11.3 28.7 Rounding
120 July 26 66.5 58.8 7.7 Clerical
42 June 28 22.5 17.0 5.5 Double-count
Clerical error: The calculation sheets had the correct value, while the summary sheet had a different number. Rounding error: The rounding of meter data in the calculation sheet resulted in different baseline date selections (e.g., July 2 instead of July 8). Double-counting error: The calculation sheet double-counted June 22 and June 24 in baseline calculations.

16
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
APPENDIX A: 2021 CLAIMED AND EVALUATED REALIZATION RATES
The table below outlines the 2021 claimed realization rates for each event and the season realization rates.
Table 7. 2021 Claimed Realization Rates per Participant
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
1 53.4% 30.0% 103.8% 68.9% 0.0% 51.2%
2 54.1% 11.9% 25.7% 5.7% 57.7% 31.0%
3 3.7% 0.7% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
4 17.0% 0.0% 50.6% 36.1% 0.0% 20.8%
5 25.2% 23.8% 45.4% 21.4% 232.0% 69.5%
6 82.1% 54.0% 72.2% 78.6% 71.3% 71.6%
7 58.1% 66.9% 87.4% 42.1% 0.0% 50.9%
8 156.0% 51.4% 43.5% 78.0% 55.4% 76.9%
9 98.3% 99.0% 102.8% 96.0% 323.9% 144.0%
10 43.3% 19.0% 0.0% 12.1% 5.6% 16.0%
11 N/A 124.3% 93.1% 118.0% 132.5% 117.0%
12 48.0% 11.0% 7.0% 46.0% 131.0% 48.6%
13 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 72.6% 17.2%
14 11.0% 0.0% 55.5% 0.0% 31.0% 19.5%
15 0.0% 13.5% 1.0% 0.0% 10.5% 5.0%
16 52.0% 70.0% 22.0% 0.0% 203.0% 69.4%
17 10.0% 76.7% 123.3% 65.0% 5.0% 56.0%
18 5.0% 0.0% 104.0% 97.5% 38.5% 49.0%
19 79.5% 150.2% 104.2% 109.5% 141.2% 116.9%
20 114.0% 91.7% 90.3% 88.8% 0.0% 77.0%
21 201.4% 227.9% 193.6% 2.9% 194.3% 164.0%
22 0.0% 77.5% 66.8% 6.5% 30.8% 36.3%
23 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3%
24 0.4% 8.0% 22.6% 22.6% 0.8% 10.9%
25 76.1% 84.4% 109.0% 73.3% 35.3% 75.6%
26 135.0% 121.3% 121.3% 108.8% 111.3% 119.5%
27 9.0% 16.0% 3.0% 53.0% 38.0% 23.8%

17
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
28 206.7% 71.7% 1.7% 0.8% 25.0% 61.2%
29 221.0% 249.0% 244.0% 250.0% 133.0% 219.4%
30 1.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.2%
31 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
32 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 4.0%
33 7.5% 20.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0%
34 15.0% 20.0% 65.0% 20.0% 25.0% 29.0%
35 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 104.0% 21.2%
36 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.3% 8.1%
37 13.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 2.8%
38 20.5% 0.3% 27.6% 21.3% 27.5% 19.5%
39 334.8% 189.4% 58.5% 0.0% 0.0% 116.5%
40 486.0% 476.5% 275.5% 117.5% 0.0% 271.1%
41 150.1% 167.7% 192.9% 32.3% 0.0% 108.6%
42 50.0% 45.6% 361.7% 405.0% 278.9% 228.2%
43 348.3% 367.8% 115.0% 139.7% 98.0% 157.6%
44 10.3% 67.1% 26.0% 20.6% 22.5% 29.3%
45 17.4% 43.4% 58.4% 55.7% 69.5% 48.9%
46 27.9% 0.0% 1.3% 23.0% 13.6% 13.2%
47 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% 8.7% 158.3% 36.6%
48 104.4% 127.5% 0.0% 0.0% 147.8% 75.9%
49 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 2.5% 4.3% 1.6%
50 28.4% 12.8% 36.5% 39.9% 33.1% 30.1%
51 111.3% 37.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 30.0%
52 81.0% 35.8% 41.0% 3.9% 0.0% 32.3%
53 80.0% 27.9% 21.4% 20.0% 2.1% 30.3%
54 115.4% 3.2% 7.5% 7.5% 9.3% 28.6%
55 64.4% 69.4% 53.7% 101.1% 90.5% 75.8%
56 24.1% 42.4% 17.1% 7.4% 6.5% 19.5%
57 0.0% 0.0% 23.9% 233.4% 80.1% 67.5%
58 186.4% 280.3% 10.1% 127.8% 210.4% 163.0%
59 49.0% 0.0% 114.3% 158.3% 31.5% 70.6%
60 210.3% 83.5% 144.2% 129.2% 136.4% 141.9%

18
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
61 54.0% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2% 16.3%
62 112.0% 134.9% 204.5% 0.0% 212.5% 132.8%
63 59.7% 216.3% 135.0% 299.7% 0.0% 142.1%
64 2572.9% 653.8% 335.4% 216.3% 68.6% 769.4%
65 58.0% 0.0% 0.0% 53.0% 7.0% 23.6%
66 1.8% 1.5% 4.8% 28.5% 0.0% 7.3%
67 1.0% 18.3% 0.5% 45.3% 0.0% 13.0%
68 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 68.8% 2.5% 17.1%
69 12.0% 18.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 6.3%
70 14.5% 19.0% 11.8% 23.0% 6.3% 14.9%
71 6.0% 2.8% 0.0% 33.3% 1.8% 8.8%
72 142.5% 115.6% 210.6% 226.3% 201.9% 179.4%
73 50.7% 39.1% 0.0% 0.0% 171.2% 49.3%
74 37.0% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A 18.5%
75 41.6% 11.9% 95.4% 650.5% 35.3% 166.9%
76 34.0% 0.0% 5.3% 4.3% 148.3% 38.4%
77 36.4% 70.7% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 27.4%
78 391.0% 0.0% 61.0% 49.0% 111.0% 122.4%
79 108.5% 18.0% 152.5% 160.5% 0.0% 87.9%
80 94.5% 52.0% 0.0% 3.5% 45.0% 39.0%
81 249.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.0% 58.4%
82 0.0% 36.8% 210.4% 138.6% 111.8% 99.5%
83 81.3% 1.3% 7.5% 75.0% 61.3% 45.3%
84 36.9% 37.5% 28.1% 33.8% 24.4% 32.1%
85 20.0% 5.0% 1.3% 25.0% 45.0% 19.3%
86 51.0% 0.0% 0.0% 86.0% 42.0% 35.8%
87 73.8% 0.0% 8.8% 126.3% 62.5% 54.3%
88 21.8% 5.8% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%
89 13.8% 15.0% 19.8% 19.8% 20.3% 17.8%
90 19.3% 3.5% 12.3% 9.3% 10.0% 10.9%
91 10.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 5.2%
92 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% 2.6%
93 0.0% 236.3% 152.5% 117.5% 0.0% 101.3%

19
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
94 11.1% 55.7% 55.4% 41.8% 29.3% 38.6%
95 206.3% 99.8% 1.0% 27.0% 86.0% 84.0%
96 27.0% 7.3% 5.0% 1.3% 0.3% 8.2%
97 87.1% 318.5% 87.7% 0.0% 22.5% 103.2%
98 107.5% 23.8% 7.5% 91.3% 120.0% 70.0%
99 25.0% 33.3% 3.0% 20.3% 19.8% 20.3%
100 135.6% 100.0% 157.5% 172.5% 118.1% 136.8%
101 147.2% 81.4% N/A N/A 10.1% 67.2%
102 1.8% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.9%
103 0.0% 22.5% N/A N/A N/A 11.3%
104 0.0% 15.2% 0.0% 0.0% 21.5% 7.3%
105 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 26.0% 5.9%
106 22.2% 0.5% 66.7% 2.4% 1.8% 18.7%
107 126.1% 98.1% 97.2% 40.7% 76.4% 87.7%
108 65.0% 58.3% 66.8% 66.3% 65.7% 64.4%
109 0.0% 3.0% 0.2% 76.9% 0.3% 16.1%
110 75.6% 0.4% 72.7% 62.5% 61.4% 54.5%
111 31.1% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9%
112 44.7% 27.7% 45.5% 20.5% 43.8% 36.4%
113 11.7% 10.7% 13.7% 0.0% 76.0% 22.4%
114 70.4% 90.4% 93.8% 0.0% 92.9% 69.5%
115 199.6% 129.3% 140.7% 0.0% 170.7% 128.1%
116 89.6% 87.9% 61.1% 0.0% 85.4% 64.8%
117 192.9% 128.9% 161.4% 5.7% 147.1% 127.2%
118 84.9% 94.7% 127.6% 120.5% 80.6% 101.7%
119 280.5% 0.0% 34.5% 206.5% 198.0% 143.9%
120 165.5% 82.0% 133.0% 171.5% 71.5% 124.7%
121 122.5% 109.5% 212.0% 164.0% 198.5% 161.3%
122 171.0% 196.0% 301.5% 274.0% 226.0% 233.7%
123 168.5% 186.0% 197.5% 233.5% 248.5% 206.8%
124 105.5% 118.5% 123.5% 107.0% 67.0% 104.3%
125 132.5% 146.0% 194.5% 176.5% 68.0% 143.5%
126 123.5% 118.0% 169.5% 301.0% 131.0% 168.6%

20
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
127 187.5% 170.5% 214.0% 185.0% 174.0% 186.2%
128 6.5% 14.5% 145.5% 218.0% 82.5% 93.4%
129 43.5% 114.0% 57.5% 74.5% 47.0% 67.3%
130 57.5% 88.5% 107.0% 122.0% 134.0% 101.8%
131 37.5% 6.3% 88.8% 20.0% 23.8% 35.3%
132 0.0% 7.5% 25.0% 7.5% 16.3% 11.3%
133 16.3% 31.3% 36.3% 61.3% 51.3% 39.3%
134 55.5% 55.5% 95.0% 193.5% 103.5% 100.6%
135 106.8% 40.0% 0.0% 21.5% 29.3% 39.5%
136 6.3% 4.0% 4.2% 3.0% 13.0% 6.1%
137 89.1% 97.4% 22.5% 70.6% 59.3% 67.8%
138 71.7% 111.0% 166.7% 107.3% 140.3% 119.4%
139 3.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2.4% 1.2%
N/As represent sites that were not able to participate in the respective events.

21
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
The table below outlines the 2021 evaluated realization rates for each event and the season realization rates.
Table 8. 2021 Evaluated Realization Rates per Participant
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
1 53.4% 30.0% 103.8% 68.9% 0.0% 51.2%
2 54.1% 11.7% 25.6% 5.6% 57.5% 30.9%
3 4.5% 0.7% 5.2% 0.0% 0.1% 2.1%
4 17.0% 0.0% 50.5% 47.5% 0.0% 23.0%
5 25.6% 23.6% 45.0% 21.2% 231.9% 69.5%
6 82.0% 54.2% 72.1% 78.6% 71.4% 71.7%
7 57.9% 67.0% 87.1% 41.8% 0.0% 50.8%
8 155.7% 51.6% 43.4% 78.2% 55.3% 76.8%
9 98.3% 99.0% 102.8% 96.0% 323.9% 144.0%
10 43.1% 18.7% 0.0% 12.1% 5.5% 15.9%
11 N/A 124.2% 93.2% 117.9% 132.3% 116.9%
12 52.4% 11.2% 7.0% 46.1% 131.8% 49.7%
13 13.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 73.1% 17.4%
14 11.0% 0.0% 55.3% 0.0% 30.9% 19.4%
15 0.0% 12.8% 1.3% 0.3% 6.5% 4.2%
16 52.2% 72.4% 23.0% 0.0% 200.9% 69.7%
17 8.5% 78.6% 128.0% 71.2% 5.2% 58.3%
18 2.7% 0.0% 104.8% 98.5% 37.5% 48.7%
19 79.2% 149.6% 104.2% 109.6% 141.2% 116.8%
20 113.5% 92.0% 90.2% 88.8% 0.0% 76.9%
21 202.2% 227.7% 195.5% 2.2% 192.1% 163.9%
22 0.0% 77.2% 66.7% 6.4% 30.4% 36.2%
23 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
24 0.5% 7.8% 22.5% 22.5% 0.5% 10.7%
25 76.0% 84.4% 108.9% 73.0% 35.3% 75.5%
26 132.0% 119.5% 121.9% 111.3% 115.2% 120.0%
27 11.8% 16.3% 3.0% 52.9% 39.6% 24.7%
28 205.5% 70.1% 2.5% 2.2% 24.3% 60.9%
29 221.2% 250.6% 242.9% 250.2% 132.8% 219.5%
30 3.1% 0.6% 2.3% 1.9% 1.5% 1.9%

22
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
31 0.9% 1.9% 0.0% 11.6% 6.1% 4.1%
32 6.2% 5.8% 0.0% 1.5% 3.6% 3.4%
33 5.0% 12.4% 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 4.1%
34 9.8% 33.0% 62.8% 31.7% 27.0% 32.8%
35 0.2% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 104.3% 21.4%
36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.3% 8.1%
37 13.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 2.7%
38 20.5% 0.3% 27.5% 21.4% 27.7% 19.5%
39 334.9% 189.7% 58.6% 0.0% 0.0% 116.6%
40 486.7% 476.5% 275.3% 117.7% 0.0% 271.3%
41 150.0% 167.7% 192.8% 32.4% 0.0% 108.6%
42 37.7% 46.0% 361.7% 406.0% 279.5% 226.2%
43 347.1% 368.8% 115.0% 139.2% 97.9% 157.5%
44 10.2% 67.2% 26.3% 20.8% 22.4% 29.4%
45 17.6% 43.2% 58.2% 56.0% 69.6% 48.9%
46 28.1% 0.0% 1.3% 22.9% 13.8% 13.2%
47 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% 8.7% 158.3% 36.6%
48 104.5% 127.4% 0.0% 0.0% 147.8% 75.9%
49 0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 2.4% 4.2% 1.6%
50 28.3% 12.7% 36.5% 39.9% 33.1% 30.1%
51 111.3% 37.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 29.9%
52 81.1% 35.8% 41.0% 3.9% 0.0% 32.4%
53 81.9% 26.7% 20.6% 12.1% 1.8% 28.6%
54 115.6% 3.0% 7.4% 6.8% 9.1% 28.4%
55 64.2% 69.2% 53.8% 101.1% 90.5% 75.8%
56 24.1% 42.6% 14.9% 7.6% 6.3% 19.1%
57 0.0% 0.0% 23.9% 233.6% 80.3% 67.6%
58 186.3% 280.4% 10.1% 127.8% 210.4% 163.0%
59 48.4% 0.0% 114.9% 159.0% 31.1% 70.7%
60 210.2% 83.5% 144.4% 129.3% 136.4% 141.9%
61 54.3% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2% 16.4%
62 112.0% 135.0% 204.6% 0.0% 212.5% 132.8%
63 59.4% 216.5% 135.8% 298.9% 0.0% 142.1%

23
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
64 2572.9% 654.0% 335.4% 216.4% 68.7% 769.5%
65 57.7% 0.0% 0.0% 52.2% 7.0% 23.4%
66 1.8% 1.7% 5.2% 27.6% 0.0% 7.3%
67 0.6% 18.4% 0.3% 44.8% 0.0% 12.8%
68 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 68.2% 2.4% 17.0%
69 13.0% 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%
70 14.4% 18.2% 11.3% 22.4% 6.5% 14.6%
71 6.0% 2.5% 0.0% 33.5% 2.2% 8.8%
72 143.2% 115.8% 210.9% 228.3% 202.4% 180.1%
73 50.9% 39.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 30.2%
74 36.7% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A 18.3%
75 41.6% 11.8% 95.3% 650.5% 35.3% 166.9%
76 33.7% 0.0% 5.7% 4.5% 148.9% 38.6%
77 36.5% 70.8% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 27.5%
78 390.7% 0.0% 61.5% 50.6% 111.3% 122.8%
79 108.8% 18.0% 152.4% 160.7% 0.0% 88.0%
80 94.2% 51.1% 0.0% 3.4% 46.5% 39.1%
81 246.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.6% 57.9%
82 0.0% 37.3% 210.5% 138.5% 111.4% 99.5%
83 80.1% 0.5% 8.0% 73.6% 61.4% 44.7%
84 37.0% 37.4% 25.7% 34.6% 23.3% 31.6%
85 18.6% 3.2% 2.2% 27.0% 45.4% 19.3%
86 49.9% 0.0% 0.0% 83.9% 33.8% 33.5%
87 74.5% 0.0% 5.9% 125.1% 64.5% 54.0%
88 21.9% 5.6% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%
89 13.8% 15.1% 19.6% 19.7% 20.2% 17.7%
90 19.3% 3.7% 11.9% 9.7% 10.2% 11.0%
91 7.4% 13.4% 0.1% 1.3% 4.2% 5.3%
92 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% 2.6%
93 0.0% 235.8% 149.6% 121.2% 0.0% 101.3%
94 10.8% 55.6% 56.1% 42.0% 29.5% 38.8%
95 206.4% 99.4% 1.5% 27.1% 85.7% 84.0%
96 27.2% 7.0% 4.6% 1.3% 0.4% 8.1%

24
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
97 86.8% 318.7% 87.8% 0.0% 22.6% 103.2%
98 109.7% 24.4% 5.1% 88.7% 120.9% 69.7%
99 24.6% 33.1% 3.0% 20.5% 19.7% 20.2%
100 134.7% 28.3% 154.4% 171.2% 117.8% 121.3%
101 147.2% 81.4% N/A N/A 10.1% 67.2%
102 1.7% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.9%
103 0.0% 24.3% N/A N/A N/A 12.1%
104 0.0% 15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 21.3% 7.4%
105 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 26.0% 5.9%
106 2.6% 0.5% 66.7% 2.3% 1.5% 14.7%
107 126.4% 97.6% 97.1% 41.0% 76.5% 87.7%
108 64.9% 57.8% 67.0% 66.0% 65.8% 64.3%
109 0.0% 2.9% 0.2% 76.8% 0.2% 16.0%
110 75.9% 0.4% 72.5% 62.5% 61.4% 54.5%
111 31.2% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9%
112 44.7% 27.5% 45.3% 20.6% 43.7% 36.4%
113 11.7% 10.7% 14.0% 0.0% 77.1% 22.7%
114 69.2% 90.1% 92.6% 0.0% 93.4% 69.1%
115 46.6% 124.7% 135.3% 0.0% 161.1% 93.5%
116 89.3% 88.5% 61.7% 0.0% 84.8% 64.9%
117 192.6% 129.0% 162.1% 5.0% 147.1% 127.1%
118 85.0% 94.8% 127.6% 120.4% 80.7% 101.7%
119 280.0% 0.0% 35.4% 204.3% 198.0% 143.5%
120 166.2% 81.6% 117.6% 170.0% 71.7% 121.4%
121 122.2% 109.8% 212.5% 165.3% 197.7% 161.5%
122 171.3% 196.3% 302.2% 273.8% 226.2% 234.0%
123 168.1% 185.7% 197.0% 231.9% 248.4% 206.2%
124 105.8% 118.2% 122.9% 108.7% 67.0% 104.5%
125 132.3% 147.0% 195.6% 174.7% 67.5% 143.4%
126 123.2% 117.4% 167.9% 300.2% 131.6% 168.1%
127 186.9% 169.9% 214.2% 184.4% 174.0% 185.9%
128 6.0% 14.2% 145.7% 216.2% 81.3% 92.7%
129 43.8% 113.5% 56.7% 74.3% 46.5% 66.9%

25
Idaho Power Flex Peak Program—2021 Impact Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Site number
June 28 event realization rate
July 16 event realization rate
July 26 event realization rate
July 29 event realization rate
August 12 event realization rate
Season realization rate
130 57.0% 89.1% 107.5% 122.0% 135.5% 102.2%
131 38.2% 14.9% 108.6% 21.0% 25.5% 41.6%
132 0.0% 7.8% 23.1% 10.1% 15.5% 11.3%
133 14.9% 31.7% 36.7% 62.0% 48.4% 38.7%
134 55.6% 56.0% 95.7% 193.2% 101.6% 100.4%
135 106.7% 39.6% 0.0% 21.1% 29.2% 39.3%
136 6.4% 4.0% 4.1% 3.0% 12.9% 6.1%
137 89.1% 97.3% 22.5% 70.7% 59.1% 67.7%
138 71.0% 110.9% 166.1% 107.6% 139.9% 119.1%
139 3.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2.4% 1.2%
N/As represent sites that were not able to participate in the respective events.

February 14, 2022
Idaho Power Company

Idaho Power Company
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
2021 Impact Evaluation Results

ii Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel [phone] | Fax [phone] tetratech.com

©2022 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

iii Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Control Groups .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.3 Interruption Options ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Metering Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 6
2.1.5 Incentives .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.6 Opt-Outs ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.7 Tracking and Reporting ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Evaluation Overview .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ............................................................................................... 10
3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1 Event Day Operation ....................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Dispatch Group Event Operation ..................................................................................... 14
3.2.3 Event Day Analysis ......................................................................................................... 15
3.2.4 Program Performance ..................................................................................................... 17

iv Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Program Results ...................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Irrigation Peak Rewards Activity in 2021 .................................................................................. 6
Table 3. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Evaluation Activities ............................................................ 9
Table 4. Overall Program Load Control by Date................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Measured Program Load Control by Date .............................................................................. 12
Table 6. Potential Load Reduction as a Percentage of Enrolled Load .................................................. 15
Table 7. Event Load Reduction as a Percentage of Potential Load Reduction ..................................... 16
Table 8. Measured and Non-Measured Participant Groups ................................................................. 18
Table 9. Evaluated Program Load Reduced Results (MW at Meter) .................................................... 19
Table 10. Participant Categorization Numbering and Description ....................................................... B-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Enrolled and Reduced Load Group Descriptions .................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Group Descriptions ................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Enrolled and Reduced Load Group Descriptions .................................................................. 11
Figure 5. Hourly Aggregated Measured Load Reduction by Dispatch Group ....................................... 14
Figure 6. Performance of Measured Meters by Dispatch Group and Event Day................................... 15
Figure 7. Measured Event-Day Consumption—June 28 ...................................................................... 17

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MEASURED EVENT-DAY CONSUMPTION GRAPHS ............................................A-1
APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT CATEGORIZATION .........................................................................B-1

v Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2021 impact evaluation of the Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards program; this evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support.
We would like to thank Chad Severson, Tonja Dyke, Dan Axness, Kathy Yi, and Quentin Nesbitt of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to
follow-up questions and data and documentation requests.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team included the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark Bergum, Jonathan Hoechst, Najoua Jouini, Jesse Russell, and Laura Meyer.

1 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report covering the evaluation of 2021 program impacts for the Irrigation Peak Rewards (IPR) program. This report section
consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. The program's impact evaluation is detailed in Section 3.0.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The IPR program is a voluntary demand response program available to Idaho Power's 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). Program parameters are listed below:
• June 15 to August 15 (excluding Sundays and July 4)
• Up to four hours per day between 1:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
• Event start times may vary
• 9:00 p.m. option is a self-selected extended option
• Up to 15 hours per week
• No more than 60 hours per season
• At least three events per season
IPR is available to Idaho Power irrigation customers receiving service under Schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho and Oregon. Eligibility is based on prior participation at the pump location. The program is
delivered by Idaho Power staff, primarily by a program specialist with support from the agricultural representatives, agricultural engineer, the energy efficiency evaluation staff, and many others within Idaho Power.
There are two options for shut-off: an automatic dispatch option, where Idaho Power sends a signal to a unit that shuts off the customer’s pump, and a manual dispatch option, where the customer is responsible for shutting down their pumps. The load reduction may span a seven-hour timeframe with four groups. In 2021, the earliest group started at 2:00 p.m. and each group is off for four hours.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Tetra Tech conducted several evaluation activities to address the impact evaluation goals. The evaluation goals included reviewing program data files, verifying claimed load reduction, discussing
discrepancies, and identifying ways Idaho Power can improve the program analysis process.
The evaluation started with program data sources and consumption data review, followed by baseline and event consumption identification and load reduction calculations. Finally, we incorporated the non-measured participants into the final evaluated results.

2 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The IPR program is well-managed with comprehensive support from Idaho Power staff, including highly knowledgeable program specialists and support staff. In 2021 the program managed 2,235 irrigation
meter locations to strategically reduce the load consumed over a four-hour period. The strategic enrollment means that the program delivers load reduction that varies by event time of day and date for four dispatch groups. The overall program load reduction can occur over seven hours on an event day.
In 2021, the IPR program delivered load reduction on eight event days, ranging from 71 to 257 MW, with a maximum realization rate of potential load reduction between 76 and 94 percent. The evaluation measured 84 to 98 percent of the load reduction per event day, providing a high level of confidence for
claimed load reduction.
Table 1. Program Results1
Date Event meter load reduction (MW) Realization of potential reduction Generation load reduction (MW)
18-Jun 168 91.0% 184
28-Jun 234 90.5% 257
12-Jul 96 86.1% 105
16-Jul 168 94.2% 184
26-Jul 112 89.4% 123
29-Jul 121 76.1% 133
30-Jul 65 87.3% 71
12-Aug 109 87.8% 120
In reviewing the program performance, it is important to recognize that the total enrolled load cannot be reduced through program implementation for two reasons. First, each event calls only some of the total devices through the dispatch groups. Second, at the time of the event, all the irrigation systems may not be operating and therefore cannot reduce load that day. Figure 1 provides explanations of the
different groups of enrolled load and load reduction referred to in this report.

1 The data and results in this report are at the meter level and do not include system losses of 9.7 percent. System losses would be added to represent results the Idaho Power system as a whole experience, except in Table 1 in the Executive Summary where system losses have been added under the ‘Generation load reduction (MW)’ column.

3 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Figure 1. Enrolled and Reduced Load Group Descriptions

Through the impact evaluation activities, Tetra Tech has identified the following recommendations for consideration by Idaho Power:
• Continue using the current load reduction calculation methodology. The IPR program uses the baseline of the first four of the previous five hours to compare against the actual
energy consumption during the event; this approach effectively captures the load reduction achieved for the event period for irrigation pumping systems.
• Use load reduced as a percentage of potential load reduction as an IPR metric. Use the comparison between the measured participants' load reduced and the event load reduction potential to identify the program performance, which will provide a consistent metric across
event days and dispatch groups to measure program performance. The potential load reduction is defined as the load that is on in the hours before the event is called and is therefore the maximum load reduction that can be expected. The current metric of load reduced as a percentage of the enrolled load identified the potential reduction for the day more than the program performance.
• Continue to improve program infrastructure to reduce consumption data and communication gaps. The improvements in program implementation infrastructure have reduced the non-measured load reduction to create a high level of confidence in the program impact results. Continue investment focused on moving devices to the AMI system, reducing the number of missing interval data points and reducing the communication errors between site devices and the IPR program. These adjustments will further improve the accuracy of the program measurement and result in the load reduction being closer to the potential for the event hour.
• Continue streamlining the load reduction analysis process. The increased data quality from the infrastructure improvement has created an opportunity to streamline the load reduction calculation and projections further. Creating a database that can integrate the various data sources and participant information will allow for computer code to complete a consistent and current potential load reduction with the most recent data available for each participant. In addition, the same process can be used on the event data to identify actual load reduction and
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

L
o
a
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ev
e
n
t
-Da
y

E
n
r
o
l
l
e
d

L
o
a
d
Lo
a
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
d
To
t
a
l

E
n
r
o
l
l
e
d

L
o
a
d
This is the enrolled load of all 2,235 participants.
This is the enrolled load of the dispatch groups called for the event day.
This is the portion of the event enrolled load that is operating on the event day.
This metric is the potential load reduction percentage.
This is the claimed load reduction.
This metric is the realization of the potential load.

4 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
automate the ability to identify nonparticipants and partial participants to cross-reference with program files. The metric of potential load reduced as a percentage of enrolled load will create
a consistent identification of the impact of the load control event.

5 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The IPR program is a voluntary demand response program available to Idaho Power Company's (Idaho Power) 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). IPR is available to Idaho Power irrigation customers receiving service under Schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho and Oregon. Eligibility is based on prior participation at the pump location.
Program parameters are listed below:
• June 15 to August 15 (excluding Sundays and July 4)
• Up to four hours per day between 1:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
• Event start times may vary
• 9:00 p.m. option is a self-selected extended option
• Up to 15 hours per week
• No more than 60 hours per season
• At least three events per season
2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach
Customers enroll for the IPR program in early spring. Typically, in person irrigation workshops are scheduled throughout the service area. However, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the company's agricultural representatives provided information on the program during the virtual Eastern Idaho Ag Expo and other virtual training sessions. Each eligible customer was sent a comprehensive packet
containing an informational brochure, an enrollment worksheet, and a contact worksheet encouraging their participation. Idaho Power agricultural representatives continue to remind and inform customers to encourage program participation.
2.1.2 Control Groups
The load reduction event period can span a seven-hour timeframe. Idaho Power has assigned enrolled customers to one of four dispatch groups. Each group is off for four hours, starting as early as 2:00 p.m., with the last group ending as late as 9:00 p.m. The groups, shown in Figure 2, represent a
mixture of regional designations and early or late shut-off option indicators.

6 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Figure 2. Group Descriptions

In 2021, IPC called events on eight different days. Each group was asked to participate in five or fewer events during the program season. The table below shows the event dates and timeframes for each participant group.
Table 2. Irrigation Peak Rewards Activity in 2021
Event date Group A Group B Group C Group C1 Group C2 Group D
6/18/2021 3–7 p.m. 4–8 p.m. 2–6 p.m. 3–7 p.m.
6/28/2021 4–8 p.m. 4–8 p.m. 2–6 p.m. 3–7 p.m. 5–9 p.m.
7/12/2021 4–8 p.m. 5–9 p.m.
7/16/2021 4–8 p.m. 4–8 p.m. 2–6 p.m. 3–7 p.m.
7/26/2021 3–7 p.m. 4–8 p.m. 5–9 p.m.
7/29/2021* 4–8 p.m. 4–8 p.m. 2–6 p.m. 3–7 p.m.
7/30/2021** 4–8 p.m. 4–8 p.m.
8/12/2021*** 4–8 p.m. 4–8 p.m. 5–9 p.m.
* Fourth event for Group B, C, C1, C2 7/29/2021 ** Fourth event for Group A and D 7/30/2021 *** Fifth event for Group A, B, D 8/12/2021
2.1.3 Interruption Options
There are two options for shut-off: an automatic dispatch option and a manual dispatch option.
• Automatic Dispatch Option. Participating service points are automatically controlled by Idaho Power switches. All pumps at the location must be controlled with a switch. Fixed credits are paid as a bill credit and based on billed kilowatt (kW) and billed kilowatt-hour (kWh).
• Manual Dispatch Option. Participating service points with at least 1000 HP or limited communication availability may choose which pumps are manually turned off during a load control event. Manual participants may elect the kW reduction amount during enrollment. Credits are paid in the form of a check and based on actual load reduction during the event timeframe.
2.1.4 Metering Infrastructure
Interval metering has been deployed to nearly all the participants in the IPR program. The interval meters collect and transmit consumption data for participants to Idaho Power. Depending on the type of meter, this can take between three days and a month. This information is organized into hourly data
Group A
•Eastern Region
Group B
•Southern Region
Group C
•Capital, Canyon, Western Regions
•C1 -2:00 p.m. shut-off
•C2 -3:00 p.m. shut-off
Group D
•Participants from all regions
•Late shut-off (5:00–9:00 p.m.)

7 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
and used to estimate the potential load reduction prior to an event and calculate the demand reduction for each hour of each event.
In 2021, less than one percent of the IPR participants (20 participants) and less than a tenth of a percent of the enrolled load did not have interval meter data.
2.1.5 Incentives
Automatic dispatch participants receive incentives in the form of a billing credit. The billing credit is
made up of a demand credit (kW)and an energy credit (kWh) applied to the billing statements including season dates of June 15 through August 15. The demand and energy credits for the manual dispatch participants are paid with a check.
• The fixed incentive is $5.00/billed kW and an energy credit of $0.0076/billed kWh.
• The demand (kW) credit is calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related incentive amount.
• The energy (kWh) credit is calculated by multiplying monthly billing usage by the energy-related incentive amount.
• The fixed credit is applied to monthly bills, and credits are prorated for periods when reading/billing cycles do not align with the program season dates.
• Variable credit payments are paid after the third event:
o Standard interruption = $0.148 * event duration (4 hours) * billed kW
o Extended interruption = $0.198 * event duration (4 hours) * billed kW
2.1.6 Opt-Outs
Program rules allow customers to opt-out of dispatch events up to five times per service point. The first three opt-outs incur a $5 per kW penalty, while the remaining two incur a $1 per kW penalty based on the current month's billing kW. The opt-out penalty is a line item on the billing statement for customers on the automatic dispatch option and is always shown after the billing cycle of the opt-out event date. Manual dispatch option participants will receive a reduced payment if any unexpected load/kW is left on during the event timeframe. The opt-out penalties will never exceed the amount of the season credits. The participants will not owe any additional amount if opting out of all events.
2.1.7 Tracking and Reporting
The IPR participants enroll irrigation pumps in the program. The device location number is interchangeable with the pump number as an identifier and used to track the enrolled service locations.
For each device location, the following information is tracked:
• pump number
• pump geographic location
• service point city and state
• device type

8 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
• meter read type
• dispatch group
• dispatch option (automatic or manual)
• participant name and mailing address
• payment type (billing credit or large credit)
• kW nominated for the season:
o automatic dispatch—maximum billed kW from the prior year
o manual dispatch—nominated by the participant
• electric feeder and substation identification
• motor horsepower enrolled
• participant contact names and notification methods (i.e., text-only)
The device locations with an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meter installed have the aggregated hourly interval data provided in a spreadsheet. To track performance, the manually
controlled participants without interval meter data (MV90 or AMI) may have a data logger at their service point. The data logger provides aggregated hourly interval data in a spreadsheet similar to the other advanced meter locations.
Once the interval data is collected, the demand reduction is determined by comparing usage before the event (baseline hours) and usage during the event hours. The current baseline calculation includes the following steps:
• The baseline is calculated using the average of the first four of the five hours prior to the dispatch group start time (i.e., the hour before dispatch is not used).
• The event hour reduction is calculated using the maximum hour reduction in the event time frame for each dispatch group.
• Interval meter data with errors in the base hours or event hours are not used for the measured load reduction calculation.
• Load reduction for non-measured service points without interval meter data, or with interval meter data containing errors, uses the measured percentage of enrolled load to extrapolate the
load reduction.
2.2 EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The evaluation goals for the 2021 IPR program include:
• understanding the program operations and impact calculation,
• calculating the measured load reduction attributable to the 2021 summer program using Idaho Power's current average load difference between the baseline and the average load during the event,
• estimating the non-measured load reduction, and

9 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
• providing recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and accuracy of future demand response calculations.
2.2.1 Evaluation Activities
The evaluation activities for the IPR program are summarized in Table 3. Researchable issues and the sampling strategy are also discussed in this section.
Table 3. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size Objective
Interviews with implementation staff 1 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program staff perspective on program successes and challenges. Identify researchable issues.
Review program materials N/A Review documentation as needed to provide context to savings calculations, meter data, and event data.
Integrate data sources 4 spreadsheets Create a common data organization for participant data
and consumption data from multiple existing sources.
Calculate baseline and load reduction 2,235 participants Evaluate the load reduction for each service point, including identifying the data errors and variations in expected participation.
2.2.2 Sampling
The IPR calculations were conducted using the full set of 2021 participants with interval metering and
consumption logged separately. The participants not sampled are less than one percent.

10 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS
The evaluation goals for the 2021 IPR program include:
• understanding the program operations and impact calculation,
• calculating the load reduction attributable to the 2021 summer program using Idaho Power's current average load difference between the baseline and the average load during the event,
• calculating the load reduction for manual dispatch participants,
• estimating the load reduction for any participant without interval metering data, and
• providing recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and accuracy of future demand
response calculations.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3. Each activity is explained in more detail below.

Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program

• Program Tracking. The first step in evaluating the IPR program was to review the tracked participant data and energy consumption interval data provided by Idaho Power. The tracked participant data contained relevant information for participants to evaluate the program. Idaho Power identified the logic behind the participant data depending on the device type and meter type and identified the key data points used to connect the consumption data to the participant. Tetra Tech determined that each participant's tracking data was complete with an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) or MV90 meter or a separate data logger.
Program
tracking
•Review data tracking
•Identify data sources
•Characterize participants by device type and data source
Billing
data
•Review and normalize hourly consumption•Identify error codes in events•Identify baseline and event consumption•Characterize participants by consumption patterns
Demand
response
•Aggregate by participant dispatch group
•Aggregate by participant characterization
•Aggregate by event day
Program
results
•Apply realization rate to non-calculated participants•Aggregate demand response and realization rate for program

11 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
• Billing Data. Tetra Tech imported all the data sources into a single database with all the participant and billing data to review the consumption data. Each event period and baseline period were identified per participant. Error codes were identified, and those service points were removed from the data set for event periods. The participant baseline consumption was
identified as well as the consumption of each hour of the event. Further, code was written to characterize the participant in each event. This information was exported to a spreadsheet containing the results per participant and a summary of the results can be found in Appendix B.
• Demand Response. The spreadsheet results aggregated the load reduction by event day, dispatch group, and participant category; this is the measured group performance.
• Program Results. The measured group performance was used to estimate the performance of the non-measured group. The program results are generated from the combination of the measured and non-measured groups.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
The IPR program called for load reduction on eight days in 2021. Overall, there were 2,235 participating device locations with 401.4 MW enrolled. To determine the program performance, it is important to
recognize that the total enrolled load cannot be reduced through the program implementation; this is true for two reasons. First, each event calls only some of the total devices through the dispatch groups. Second, at the time of the event, the irrigation systems may not be operating and therefore cannot reduce load that day.
We further describe the different groups of enrolled load and load reduction in the figure below.
Figure 4. Enrolled and Reduced Load Group Descriptions

Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

L
o
a
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ev
e
n
t
-Da
y

E
n
r
o
l
l
e
d

L
o
a
d
Lo
a
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
d
To
t
a
l

E
n
r
o
l
l
e
d

L
o
a
d
This is the enrolled load of all 2,235 participants.
This is the enrolled load of the dispatch groups called for the event day.
This is the portion of the event enrolled load that is operating on the event day.
This metric is the potential load reduction percentage.
This is the claimed load reduction.
This metric is the realization of the potential load.

12 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Overall, the load reduced (either per dispatch group or event day) can be reviewed using the two metrics identified: the potential load reduction percentage and the realization of potential load reduction.
The realization of enrolled load percentage identifies the difference between the enrolled load and the potential maximum load reduction, (i.e., the percentage of enrolled load that was on in the event day). The realization of the potential load reduced identifies the program performance compared to the
potential load reduction for the event day. Table 4 shows the event day enrolled load, potential load reduction, and the load reduced at the meter for each event day. It also includes the realization of the potential load and the adjustment to determine the load reduced at the meter.
Table 4. Overall Program Load Control by Date2
Date Load enrolled (MW) Potential load reduction (MW)
Realization of enrolled load (MW) Load reduced at meter (MW)
Realization of potential load reduced
18-Jun 234 184 78.6% 168 91.1%
28-Jun 299 258 86.3% 234 90.6%
12-Jul 168 111 66.1% 96 86.1%
16-Jul 234 178 76.1% 168 94.3%
26-Jul 269 125 46.5% 112 89.3%
29-Jul 234 160 68.4% 121 75.9%
30-Jul 168 74 44.0% 65 87.3%
12-Aug 269 124 46.1% 109 87.8%
The final values in Table 4 are built from the measured load control and the non-measured load control groups. The measured group contains all sites with error-free interval meter data, and the non-measured group contains all sites without interval meter data, as well as sites with interval meter data
that contains any errors in the baseline or event timeframe The metrics from the measured group are used to estimate the performance of the non-measured group. The total load reduction as a percentage of enrolled load from the measured group is applied to the enrolled load of the non-measured group to obtain an estimate of the non-measured group’s reduction.
The measured potential load reduction is calculated as the average of the first four hours of the five hours prior to the start of the event. The potential load reduction percentage is the comparison between aggregated potential load reduction and the enrolled load from the event participating meters; the realization of potential load is the comparison between the measured load reduction and the potential load reduction of those participants. Table 5 identifies the event day metrics of potential load reduction and realization of potential load reduced.
Table 5. Measured Program Load Control by Date
Date Load enrolled (MW) Potential load reduction (MW)
Potential load reduction
(% of enrolled) Maximum load reduction (MW) Realization of potential load reduced
18-Jun 198 156 78.9% 142 91.0%
28-Jun 266 230 86.2% 208 90.5%

2 The data and results in this report are at the meter level and do not include system losses of 9.7 percent.
System losses would be added to represent results the Idaho Power system as a whole experience except in Table 1 in the Executive Summary where system losses have been added.

13 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Date Load enrolled (MW) Potential load reduction (MW)
Potential load reduction
(% of enrolled) Maximum load reduction (MW) Realization of potential load reduced
12-Jul 158 105 66.3% 90 86.1%
16-Jul 228 174 76.2% 164 94.2%
26-Jul 255 118 46.5% 106 89.4%
29-Jul 227 155 68.4% 118 76.1%
30-Jul 160 71 44.2% 62 87.3%
12-Aug 248 114 46.1% 100 87.8%
The program generally realized over 85 percent of the potential load reduction for the event days, with one adjustment of 76 percent on July 29. See Section 3.2.3 and Section 3.2.4 for discussion of the performance.
3.2.1 Event Day Operation
Each event day had different dispatch groups called to participate; therefore, the enrolled load varies by event day. Further, the start time of each dispatch group called varies across the event day; the maximum hourly load reduction for the event will likely not equal the sum of the participating dispatch group load reductions. For example, three dispatch groups could be called for an event, each with a maximum load reduction of 100 kW; but as they layer over each other at different times, there will be slight variations that show up in individual hours and the maximum event day reduction may only be 295 kW.
Figure 5 shows overlapping load reduction periods with multiple dispatch groups on an event day. Throughout the impact review results discussion, it is important to remember that the event day results will not be equal to the sum of the dispatch group results.

14 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Figure 5. Hourly Aggregated Measured Load Reduction by Dispatch Group

In the case of July 28, the hour ending at 18:00 (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) has the greatest measured load reduced for the event day. The other hours have a smaller measured load reduction because dispatch groups cycle on later and off earlier during the event.
3.2.2 Dispatch Group Event Operation
Each dispatch group is called for a four-hour event starting at various times on the event day. Figure 4
identified the enrolled load, which stays consistent for each dispatch group for each event and shows how each dispatch group is performing over their individual four-hour period. Figure 6 shows the performance by dispatch group and event. The gray bar indicates total load enrolled in the group, the
green shows the potential load reduction, or what was on during the event for the group, and blue indicates the load reduction for the group.
A small green bar indicates that a higher percentage of the load that was on before the event was
called is reduced by the event. Larger gray bars (as we tend to see later in the season) indicate that a greater amount of the enrolled load was turned off on the day of the event and not able to be reduced.
Sum of Potential Load
Sum of Enrolled Load
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Lo
a
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

(
k
W
)
Hour Ending
July 28, 2021
D A C
C2 C1

15 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Figure 6. Performance of Measured Meters by Dispatch Group and Event Day

The consistent characteristics between the Dispatch Groups A, B, and D show that the early-season events have significantly more potential reduction than the late-season events. This decrease in
potential reduction is primarily driven by weather, crop type, and other agricultural practices and cannot be adjusted by Idaho Power. Dispatch Groups C, C1, and C2 do not show this pattern as dramatically and stay more even throughout the season. Most of the manual shut-off participants are in Group C,
C1, and C2 and they have large pumping stations with multiple pumps for delivering water to large tracts of land. These large pumping stations with multiple owners and various crops create a more consistent load profile over the season than what is seen from a more typical irrigation system.
For Dispatch Group C1 on June 18, June 28, and July 16, the enrolled load is less than the potential load reduced, and the load reduced is equal to the potential load reduced; therefore, all bars are the same height, and the load reduced is the only display seen.
3.2.3 Event Day Analysis
Each event day has a unique potential load reduction based on the daily consumption properties of the dispatch groups called. Table 6 identifies the variance between the enrolled load and potential load reduction for each day.
Table 6. Potential Load Reduction as a Percentage of Enrolled Load
Dispatch group 18-Jun 28-Jun 12-Jul 16-Jul 26-Jul 29-Jul 30-Jul 12-Aug
A 84.3% 67.9% 41.7% 43.1% 41.1%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
6/
2
8
7/
1
2
7/
2
6
7/
3
0
8/
1
2
6/
1
8
7/
1
6
7/
2
6
7/
2
9
8/
1
2
6/
1
8
6/
2
8
7/
1
6
7/
2
9
6/
1
8
6/
2
8
7/
1
6
7/
2
9
6/
1
8
6/
2
8
7/
1
6
7/
2
9
6/
2
8
7/
1
2
7/
2
6
7/
3
0
8/
1
2
A B C C1 C2 D
Lo
a
d

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

(
M
W
)
Enrolled Potential Load Reduction Load Reduced

16 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Dispatch group 18-Jun 28-Jun 12-Jul 16-Jul 26-Jul 29-Jul 30-Jul 12-Aug
B 75.5%

60.9% 53.6% 54.4% 51.6%
C 82.1% 91.5% 87.6% 77.0%
C1 107.4% 130.7% 119.8% 100.9%
C2 70.5% 80.8% 77.2% 83.0%
D

78.0% 64.3% 42.5%

45.7% 44.8%
Weighted maximum realization
78.9% 86.2% 66.3% 76.2% 46.5% 68.4% 44.2% 46.1%
These values provide context so that the IPR program staff can estimate the potential load reduction on event days. Currently, Idaho Power staff are reviewing these values—as available within three days of a potential event—to identify the potential load control delivered by each dispatch group. The AMI interval meter data support this effort because it is available within days of consumption. This practice
provides a good representation of the potential load reduction.
Table 7 shows the performance of each dispatch group as a percentage of the potential for that event day. These values are much more consistent across the dispatch group events and a better indicator of
the program performance.
Table 7. Event Load Reduction as a Percentage of Potential Load Reduction
Dispatch group 18-Jun 28-Jun 12-Jul 16-Jul 26-Jul 29-Jul 30-Jul 12-Aug
A 89.7% 87.1% 89.3% 88.9% 87.0%
B 91.3%

94.2% 90.0% 88.8% 89.2%
C 89.0% 93.7% 93.7% 66.6%
C1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 55.2%
C2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
D

85.1% 85.4% 90.4%

85.5% 87.6%
Weighted maximum realization
91.0% 90.5% 86.1% 94.2% 89.4% 76.1% 87.3% 87.8%
Two components factor into these values being lower than 100 percent:
• Event-day opt-outs. The program allows individual service points to opt out of any events.
• Equipment failures. The equipment used to deliver the program does not always operate as expected. Some non-responses to the program are a result of commands on the AMI system not being heard by the device or the device not turning off the irrigation system as anticipated.
Beyond each event day's individual dispatch group performance, the dispatch groups are called for various four-hour event periods between 2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The offset event hours mean that the results of an individual dispatch group are not directly additive. Figure 7 graphs the entire event day for

17 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
all participants. It shows the energy consumption of all dispatch groups whether they were called that day or not. Only the dispatch groups called that day are expected to participate in the event (Blue in
Figure 7), which shows a large reduction in load for the event period. The calculated hourly load reduction is displayed and fills the gap (Green in Figure 7).
Figure 7. Measured Event-Day Consumption—June 28

The figure shows the actual energy consumption of all IPR program participants, and the hourly load reduction as calculated for each measured service point that was part of the event. The hourly load reduction does not completely fill the gap left by the reduction in energy use, which actually indicates the program is not claiming the full demand reduction for each hour. The small valleys near the beginning and end of the event are locations where the program is claiming less reduction than may be possible. However, Idaho Power does not include the reduction in these areas in the calculation.
A similar figure for each event day is included in Appendix A.
3.2.4 Program Performance
The overall program performance for each event day includes both the measured and non-measured participants. The analysis is completed on the measured participant groups to determine the percentage of enrolled load that has the potential to be reduced and the realization rate of the potential. The non-measured participants include the participants with non-interval consumption data and the
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
June 28, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

18 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
participants with interval data that had an error in their relevant consumption data. The potential load reduction percentage and the realization of potential from the measured groups are applied to the non-
measured group to determine IPR program performance.

Table 8 shows the level of measured load reduction compared to the non-measured load. The high level of measured participants and load for all event days creates high confidence in the results
presented at the program level.
Table 8. Measured and Non-Measured Participant Groups
Date Dispatched participants Measured participant Non-measured participants Enrolled load (MW) Measured load enrolled Non-measured load enrolled
18-Jun 974 81% 19% 227 84% 16%
28-Jun 1,688 91% 9% 292 89% 11%
12-Jul 1,237 94% 6% 167 94% 6%
16-Jul 974 98% 2% 227 98% 2%
26-Jul 1,761 95% 5% 269 95% 5%
29-Jul 974 95% 5% 227 97% 3%
30-Jul 1,237 97% 3% 167 96% 4%
12-Aug 1,761 93% 7% 269 92% 8%
The program staff have made significant progress in reducing the amount of non-measured load since the last evaluation. This progress has been made possible due to automated metering substation
upgrades made as part of Idaho Powers efforts to have more meters converted to the AMI system and the exchange of cell devices to AMI demand response unit switches. The result of this investment is the non-interval meter data participants range between 0.3 percent to 1.6 percent of the enrolled load on an
event day. That effectively eliminates the impact of meters which provide non-interval data. Now, most of the non-measured load results from data errors in the interval meters, which are being investigated by Idaho Power staff. The interval meter data error may happen at the individual meter level or may
occur at a substation level. The substation level errors cause higher percentages of non-measured load.
3.2.4.1 Results
The program's overall results are reported as the maximum-hour load reduced during the day of the event. The maximum-hour load reduction is determined by the participating meter load reduction calculated for each hour of the event day. The result is that the program performance is not the sum of
the performance of each dispatch group for the event day; each group may participate at different hours throughout the event window, and the program performance takes that hourly variation into account. As identified in Section 3.2.1, each dispatch group has a variable potential load reduction (as a fraction of
the enrolled load) on the event day and a variable realization rate of the potential load reduction. The non-measured load reduction is calculated using these variables for each dispatch group to estimate
Event Day
Load
Reduction
Measured
Load
Reduction
෍ 𝑁𝑜𝑛𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 ×
𝐷
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ=𝐴
𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Realization
of Potential
%

19 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
the reduced load using the enrolled load. The results in Table 9 show the maximum load reduction for each event day at the participant meter, with a maximum of 234 MW.

Table 9. Evaluated Program Load Reduced Results (MW at Meter)
Date Measured Not measured Total event
18-Jun 142 26 168
28-Jun 208 26 234
12-Jul 90 6 96
16-Jul 164 4 168
26-Jul 106 6 112
29-Jul 118 3 121
30-Jul 62 3 65
12-Aug 100 9 109

A-1 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
APPENDIX A: MEASURED EVENT-DAY CONSUMPTION GRAPHS
As discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the report, beyond each event day's individual dispatch group performance, the dispatch groups are called for various four-hour event periods between 2:00 p.m. and
9:00 p.m. The offset event hours mean that the results of an individual dispatch group are not directly additive.
The graphs in this section plot the entire event day for all participants; they show the energy
consumption of all dispatch groups whether they were called that day or not. Only the dispatch groups called that day are expected to participate in the event, which shows a large reduction in load for the event period and are displayed in blue. The calculated hourly load reduction is displayed in green and
generally fills the gap. The irrigation load enrolled in the program, but not called on the event days are shown in gray.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
June 18, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-2 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
June 28, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-3 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
July 12, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-4 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
July 16, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-5 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
July 26, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-6 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
July 29, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-7 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
July 30, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

A-8 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MW

D
e
m
a
n
d
Hour Ending
August 12, 2021
Measured Load Reduction Consumption of dispatched participants Consumption of non-dispatched participants

B-1 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT CATEGORIZATION
In addition to developing the evaluated results, Tetra Tech wrote analysis code to characterize participants to better understand their participation in events and identify risks to the evaluated program
performance. Table 10 shows the participant categorization developed by the evaluation team.
Table 10. Participant Categorization Numbering and Description
Category Category name Category description
1 CELL Control Devices Non-measured participants that do not have interval meter data
2 Interval Meter Data Error Non-measured participants that have an interval meter data error in baseline or event period
3 Nonparticipant—Low Potential Load Measured potential load reduced for the event is below 9 kW
4 Nonparticipant—Low Load Reduced Measured load reduced during the event is below 9 kW, including opt-outs and device failures
5 Partial Participant—Ended Early Measured load reduction in hour one of the event, but the load reduction in hour four was below 9 kW
6 Partial Participant—Started Late Measured maximum load reduction is greater than 9 kW, but hour one load reduction is below 9 kW
7 Partial Participant—Partial Load Reduction Measured maximum load reduction is less than 90 percent of the potential load reduction
8 Participants Measured reduction is consistent and complete for the event
The categorization is completed for each event day based on the participants dispatched. Across different events, participants may be in different categories. For each event, each participant is only assigned to one category.
• Category 1 is developed by comparing the participant list to the data provided.
• Categories 1 and 2 are the meters that are not measured.
• Category 3 identifies the participating locations that are not operating during the event; therefore, the adjustment reduces the potential savings to near zero.
• Categories 4, 5, 6, and 7 identify the participating locations that are not meeting the expected
load reduction for the event. However, Categories 5 and 6 may show the maximum savings during one or more hours of the event and would be included when reviewing the maximum demand reduction per meter. Category 7 identifies the participants that are not reducing their full potential load over the event.

B-2 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
• Category 8 includes the participants that responded to the whole four-hour event. This category contains the majority of participants for all events and dispatch groups.
B.1 PARTICIPANT CATEGORIZATION ANALYSIS
The evaluation team created an automated categorization of participants based on baseline and performance period consumption. The meter categorization varies for each participant for each event as the consumption patterns change. For example, the agricultural practices may identify that irrigation is not needed in August but is needed in June and July. Or a meter may have not responded to a call
during one event, but others operated as expected. This recategorization at each event is expected for the IPR program.
A minimal number of meters do not have interval data, which is an opportunity to improve infrastructure.
Still, it is so small that it is not expected to impact the program's overall results. The larger opportunity for infrastructure improvement is to reduce the number of meter data errors. This group varies across events and sometimes has larger group failures. The large group data errors on June 18 and 28 are
most obvious across all groups.
The remainder of the groups indicate non-participation or partial participation; these groups are automatically identified in the data and need to be coordinated with participant opt-out data and information collected through communication to identify which participants are coordinated with the program and which are an opportunity to improve performance.
The patterns of the operation within dispatch groups are interesting. Dispatch groups A, B, and D show
similar patterns of participation. Each group shows an increasing number of participants that are not operating at the time of the event as the events move later in the season. This pattern indicates that the agricultural practices of these dispatch groups will lead to similar results each year. The load control and pump operation will not be adjusted to participate. However, these three dispatch groups show a consistent proportion of participants that have the potential to reduce load but did not participate. The program should correlate with known participant actions to determine if any of the participants in this group can be consistently adjusted into Category 8 participants.

B-3 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

71
203
353
351
342
475
383
249
274
242
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
28-Jun
12-Jul
26-Jul
30-Jul
12-Aug
Ev
e
n
t

D
a
t
e
Dispatch Group A Participation
(1)CELL Control Devices (2)Interval Meter Data Error
(3)Non-Participant –Potential Load (4)Non-Participant –Load Reduced
(5)Partial Participant –Ended Early (6)Partial Participant –Started Late
(7)Partial Participant –Partial Load Reduction (8)Participants
85
166
186
182
190
363
325
294
281
261
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
18-Jun
16-Jul
26-Jul
29-Jul
12-Aug
Ev
e
n
t

D
a
t
e
Dispatch Group B Participation
(1)CELL Control Devices (2)Interval Meter Data Error
(3)Non-Participant –Potential Load (4)Non-Participant –Load Reduced
(5)Partial Participant –Ended Early (6)Partial Participant –Started Late
(7)Partial Participant –Partial Load Reduction (8)Participants

B-4 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022

98
175
266
261
243
370
304
243
241
255
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
28-Jun
12-Jul
26-Jul
30-Jul
12-Aug
Ev
e
n
t

D
a
t
e
Dispatch Group D Participation
(1)CELL Control Devices (2)Interval Meter Data Error
(3)Non-Participant –Potential Load (4)Non-Participant –Load Reduced
(5)Partial Participant –Ended Early (6)Partial Participant –Started Late
(7)Partial Participant –Partial Load Reduction (8)Participants

B-5 Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program – 2021 Evaluation Results. February 14, 2022
Dispatch Group C is unique compared to the other groups as explained above in section 3.2.2. The first event on June 18 had a high number of data errors, attributed to a substation level error corrected
before the third event. This dispatch group had less variation in participant operations over the season resulting in the baseline staying more constant throughout the season.

Dispatch Groups C1 and C2 include three and four meters, respectively. Four participant locations of the seven have an AMI meter with AMI interval metering data available. The other three locations, have data logger packages installed with the meter to collect participant hourly data. Idaho Power installed these data loggers to provide detailed information to analyze the performance during the event and credit the customer accurately. The only variation in expected participation was one in dispatch group C2 that was not operating until after July 29.

78
91
113
115
191
283
295
265
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
18-Jun
28-Jun
16-Jul
29-Jul
Ev
e
n
t

D
a
t
e
Dispatch Group C Participation
(1)CELL Control Devices (2)Interval Meter Data Error
(3)Non-Participant –Potential Load (4)Non-Participant –Load Reduced
(5)Partial Participant –Ended Early (6)Partial Participant –Started Late
(7)Partial Participant –Partial Load Reduction (8)Participants
October 22, 2021
Idaho Power Company

Idaho Power Company
Small Business Direct Install Program
2020 Process Evaluation Results

ii Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021

6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel [phone] | Fax [phone] tetratech.com

All Rights Reserved.

iii Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 2
1.3.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 2
2.0 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS .............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Process Review Results............................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Program Documentation .................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Implementation ................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.4 Reporting ......................................................................................................................... 15

iv Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Regional Rollout Schedule ....................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. SBDI Program Evaluation Activities ......................................................................................... 6
Table 3. SBDI Program Documentation ................................................................................................. 7
Table 4. Example of Cumulative Installations by Contractor ................................................................ 15

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. SBDI Process Evaluation Activities ......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. SBDI Program Delivery Team ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Process Review Steps ............................................................................................................ 6
Figure 4. Outreach to Customers ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5. Outreach to Contractors ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6. Overview of Contractor Participation in the Eastern Region .................................................. 11

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTER INTERVIEW GUIDE .......................................................................A-1
APPENDIX B: INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................B-1
APPENDIX C: MISSING PAPERWORK QUESTIONS ....................................................................C-1

v Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2020 process evaluation of the Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install program; this evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support.
We would like to thank Chad Severson, Shelley Martin, and Kathy Yi of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and
documentation requests. DNV and FSG also assisted with documentation, contact information and provided feedback and clarifications as needed.
The Tetra Tech evaluation team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Kathryn
Shirley, and Laura Meyer.

1 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power or IPC) with this report covering the evaluation of the first phase of the 2020 Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) program, as well as
current processes. This report section consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. The program's process evaluation is detailed in a separate section.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Idaho Power launched an SBDI program in November 2019, targeting hard-to-reach small business customers using between 500–24,999 kWh annually. The program provides eligible customers a free lighting assessment with recommendations for energy-saving lighting measures as applicable. With
customer agreement, free direct installation of qualifying lighting equipment is scheduled and completed.
SBDI is offered to eligible customers in a strategic geo-targeted approach. In 2020, Idaho Power rolled out SBDI to customers in Eastern Idaho. Three cities were targeted for the soft launch: Aberdeen, American Falls, and Blackfoot.
While the COVID-19 pandemic affected outreach and access to customer sites in 2020—with a
suspension from March 30 to October 4, 2020—the program conducted 207 assessments. There were 193 customers who enrolled and139 project installations for 780,260 kWh savings. Program costs were $339,830 with a UCT1 of 1.04 and a TRC2 of 1.61.
Idaho Power pays 100 percent of the cost for a lighting assessment and installation of eligible measures for customers. SBDI is implemented by a third-party contractor that provides turn-key services. The program is delivered through collaboration between Idaho Power staff, implementing firms DNV and FSG, and local installation contractors. FSG is responsible for (1) program outreach, (2) customer assessments, (3) recruiting installation contractors, (4) supplying and managing all lighting materials, (5) and assigning customer projects to installation contractors. DNV follows up installations with quality checks on ten percent of the projects.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team conducted a few targeted process evaluation activities (including a manual
review), interviews with the implementers, and interviews with installation contractors. Because the implementer already surveys program participants, we did not interview them directly but reviewed the survey results.

1 UCT = Utility Cost Test
2 TRC = Total Resource Cost Test

2 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
Figure 1. SBDI Process Evaluation Activities

1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Idaho Power's vision was to create a very focused program that targeted its smallest business customers. With any new program, it is important to develop strategies prior to program launch and
thoroughly document those strategies to manage a successful launch. IPC has achieved this in conjunction with the program implementers. SBDI program materials are informative and educational; a Program Operations Manual and an Outreach Plan detail program roles, expectations, and procedures
while providing a firm foundation for the program. With the effort put into the Outreach Plan and Program Operations Manual, all parties are aware of their roles, schedules, and objectives of the program. Along with the operations manual, supplemental forms have been produced to support
workflows outlined in the manual.
All program roles and responsibilities have been clearly defined through the program flow and specific task workflows. Quality control and customer satisfaction processes have been implemented to
measure program quality. Contractors are trained on program requirements, and progress reporting is provided frequently.
The SBDI program team worked collaboratively to make the necessary adjustments for an effective rollout in the Eastern region. Overall satisfaction, measured by DNV’s customer satisfaction surveys, was high and indicated no major issues with the first wave of assessments and installations. FSG has worked out some initial uncertainty with program logistics, and contractors have a clearer picture of program expectations and processes. However, contractors are still struggling with increased insurance requirements and low margins with little room for logistical uncertainty. Both could continue to create issues recruiting and retaining contractors
1.3.1 Recommendations
Tetra Tech has a few process recommendations for Idaho Power's consideration:
Continue to monitor how lessons learned in each region affect the contents of the Outreach Plan and Program Operations Manual. As the program continues to roll out to other regions, additional lessons will be learned. The Outreach Plan is updated annually, and should include revisions to scripts, task workflows, and eventually, the overall program flow and logic model as interactions adjust. Additional formatting and editing could also be applied during these updates.
Consider additional customer satisfaction follow-up with nonresponding customers. With a 27 percent response rate to the implementer’s customer satisfaction survey, there may be customers who
are not responding due to dissatisfaction, even though current customer satisfaction results are high. Additional research with nonresponding customers may be beneficial, given what we heard from contractors during our evaluation. Contractors indicated hearing some dissatisfaction or
misunderstanding of what the program offered from customers. While the program staff already follow up with customers indicating concerns, enhanced program tracking of customers who may have
•Program specialist interview
•Documentation review
•Implementer interviews (2)
•Installation contractor interviews (8)•Secondary participant feedback review
Process Activities

3 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
experienced installation reschedules, quality control (QC) issues, complaints, or warranty issues may provide an opportunity to follow up with additional customers who did not complete a customer
satisfaction survey.
Review insurance requirements from FSG. While a few contractors mentioned that the need for additional insurance was a minor inconvenience, others have declined participation because of the
requirements. All of the contractors approached for the SBDI program have also completed installations through other Idaho Power programs. A couple of the contractors wondered why the FSG requested insurance requirements were higher than what is necessary elsewhere.
Work with FSG to ensure a streamlined and efficient process for contractors if reimbursement amounts cannot be increased. Three of the Eastern region contractors declined upfront to participate in the program due to their view of the compensation provided. Two more Eastern region contractors withdrew from the program after completing some installations, and one other would likely not return to the program if the compensation is not increased. Contractors we spoke with indicated that although they appreciate the steady work and exposure to additional customers, they are barely breaking even
on SBDI project work and run a high risk of losing money if the projects do not proceed perfectly. FSG will need to continue improvements they have made to stocking equipment, providing the correct equipment, and indicating any additional equipment needed to improve installation efficiency and keep costs low.
Continue to improve the process for preparing the customer for the installation. One way to mitigate the risk for contractors is to ensure customers are better prepared for the lighting installations. Multiple contractors explained that it is disruptive to their schedules and the amount of time required at a location if customers are not ready for the installation. FSG and contractors can brainstorm ways to improve customer preparedness so that rescheduling is minimized. Rescheduling impacts other projects contractors can complete and leaves their staff unutilized when they could be working.

4 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
2.0 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS
The process evaluation served as an early check on the program design compared with industry best practices. Areas reviewed included (1) program documentation, (2) marketing and outreach, (3) the
implementation process, (4) contractor engagement, and (5) program administration and tracking.
The process evaluation sought to achieve the following goals:
• provide feedback on program processes and effectiveness;
• evaluate communication effectiveness between program staff, both the prime and subcontracting implementers, customers, and installation contractors; and
• collect qualitative information on program experience and any areas for improvement.
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Idaho Power launched a Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) program in November 2019, targeting hard-to-reach small business customers using between 500–24,999 kWh annually. The program provides eligible customers a free lighting assessment with recommendations for energy-saving lighting measures as applicable. With customer agreement, free direct installation of qualifying lighting equipment is scheduled and completed.
SBDI is offered to eligible customers in a strategic geo-targeted approach, as seen in Table 1. In late 2019, Idaho Power rolled out SBDI to customers in Eastern Idaho. Three cities were targeted for the soft launch: Aberdeen, American Falls, and Blackfoot. The plan at the outset of 2021was to roll out the program to each region on the following schedule, although adjustments will be made depending on
program needs.
Table 1. Regional Rollout Schedule

*Includes a six-month COVID-19 suspension from March 30, 2020, to October 4, 2020
Outreach began with a list of 1054 eligible small businesses. While COVID-19 affected outreach and access to customer sites in 2020, the program conducted 207 assessments. There were 193 customers who enrolled and139 project installations for 780,260 kWh savings.
Idaho Power pays 100 percent of the cost for a lighting assessment and installation of eligible measures for customers. SBDI is implemented by a third-party contractor that provides turn-key services. The current program delivery team includes DNV as the prime contractor and FSG as the subcontractor. FSG is responsible for program outreach, customer assessments, recruiting installation contractors, and managing all materials. FSG assigns customer projects to installation contractors and supplies all lighting materials.

3 Schedule as listed in the DNV UPDATED SBDI - Operations Manual Revised v2.
SBDI region schedules3
Eastern November 2019–June 2021*
Southern June 2021–January 2022
Capital January 2022–August 2022
Canyon August 2022–February 2023
Western February 2023–March 2023

5 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
Figure 2. SBDI Program Delivery Team

Electrical contractors, recruited to install lighting for the customers following the FSG assessment, work with FSG to schedule installations and equipment pick-up and drop-off.
DNV's program implementation process includes the development of documents to establish the guidelines for the program. A basic outline of activities that DNV and FSG conduct for the SBDI program include, but are not limited to:
• development of program documentation and outreach materials,
• recruitment of customers and contractors,
• implementation of assessments,
• procurement and storage of qualified equipment for installation,
• customer warranty on product and installation,
• coordination of installation schedules and installer supervision,
• installation management and quality control,
• reporting of project status and pipeline, and
• measurement and management of customer satisfaction.
2.2 METHODOLOGY
The goals for the process evaluation of the 2020 SBDI program included:
• evaluate program design, including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices;
• evaluate program implementation, including quality control, operational practice, outreach, and
ease of customer participation;
• evaluate program administration, including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and reporting;
• investigate opportunities to increase contractor engagement with the program through recruitment and retention for continued expansion of the program; and
• report findings, observations, and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness.
IPC -Program Sponsor
DNV -Program Administrator
FSG -Program outreach, assessment, contractor recruitment
Installation Contractors -install lighting products

6 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
The evaluation activities for the Small Business Direct Install program are summarized in the table below.
Table 2. SBDI Program Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size Objective
Interview program specialists N/A Understand key delivery options, how savings are claimed, and how the program is tracked. Updates and clarifications will be communicated during progress reporting calls.
Review marketing materials N/A Assess the Outreach Plan and associated documentation.
Review program documentation N/A Assess the Program Operations Manual and associated documentation, including process flows, logic model, and all forms.
Review other research efforts already completed N/A Examine results available from DNV's participant survey included in the Annual Status Report Supplement 2.
Interview implementation staff Up to 4 Determine outreach methods, participation barriers, and identify communication methods that work best when reaching out to participants.
Talk with DNV as prime.
Talk with FSG staff in various roles.
Interview installation contractors Up to 10 Investigate program awareness and understanding, interactions with customers, barriers to working with the program, and their typical markets.
Analyze the reporting process and tracking systems N/A Review program tracking system and reporting outlined in the Program Operations Manual to assess whether Idaho Power is receiving enough information to understand the project pipeline and implementer progress.

The process methodology consisted of the three primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3. Each
activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 3. Process Review Steps

Review program materials. Program materials (in electronic format) provided by Idaho Power were reviewed, including the Program Operations Manual, Outreach Plan, and various supplemental
materials mentioned in the Program Operations Manual and Outreach Plan.
Review program materials Interview implementers Interview installation contractors

7 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
Interview implementers. We spoke with a representative from DNV, the firm responsible for implementing the SBDI program. DNV contracts with FSG for contractor recruitment and training,
assessments, supply management, and local management. We were able to talk with staff from both DNV and FSG about the processes outlined in the program operations manual and outreach efforts highlighted in the outreach plan. The implementer interview guide can be found in Appendix A.
Interview installation contractors. Installation contractors working in the Eastern region were contacted during the program's initial launch as part of the process review. The launch period was a time of adjustment as FSG set up in Idaho, and we were interested in what contractors had to say
about how the process progressed for them.
We talked with four contractors that had installed equipment through the program. The installation contractor interview guide can be found in Appendix B. We also spoke with four contractors that initially expressed interest to FSG but never returned their paperwork to proceed with installations. The list of questions can be found in Appendix C.
2.3 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
We reviewed program documentation and spoke with program staff, implementers, and installation contractors to get feedback from all program stakeholder perspectives. We present process results in the areas of program documentation, marketing and outreach, implementation, and reporting.
2.3.1 Program Documentation
Idaho Power, DNV, and FSG all provided useful program documentation for evaluation review.
Table 3. SBDI Program Documentation
Documentation Examples
Outreach Plan • Outreach objective, processes, and roles
• Mailer and email text
• Outbound call script
• Walk-in script
• Outreach schedule by region
Program Operations Manual • SBDI program flow
o Sub-step flow charts also included
• SBDI logic model
• CRM tracking system status definitions
SBDI program forms • Assessment report and proposal example
• Customer participation agreement example
• Customer satisfaction survey
• Quality control (QC) inspection form
• Project completion form
Annual Report Supplement 2: Evaluation • Customer satisfaction results
Reporting • Overview of reporting from DNV to Idaho
Power
• Example of customer journey tracking

8 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
Program Operations Manual. The Program Operations Manual covers everything from a high-level program overview and objectives to definitions and detailed workflows. The SBDI program forms were
all listed in the Program Operations Manual and were provided separately for review.
DNV follows industry best practices with a Program Operations Manual that is thorough in discussing all aspects of the SBDI program delivery. Examples of topics covered in the manual are:
• customer and measure eligibility;
• lead generation process;
• regional schedules with targets for assessments and installations;
• field safety protocols, risk assessment, and safe job analysis checklist;
• installer training outline;
• CRM status definitions;
• reporting requirements (weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual); and
• program accounting processes.
We also found a well-developed program flow and logic model in the Program Operations Manual.
A program logic model is a visual representation of the program's theory that illustrates a set of interrelated program activities that combine to produce various outputs that lead to short-, mid- and long-term outcomes. The program's logic model serves as a roadmap to develop and inform various audiences on program design and guide the systematic approach of EM&V activities. A program logic model can lead to a cost-effective plan to determine program effectiveness in meeting its goals and objectives by linking to performance indicators to provide ongoing feedback to program managers.
The models flow top to bottom through each activity, then left to right, and are typically organized according to the four primary categories below.
• Inputs or resources. Identify the key financial, staffing, and infrastructure resources that support each activity. When possible, identify specific budgets or systems required.
• Program activities. The overarching activities describe the major components of the program. Examples may include developing program infrastructure, recruiting program allies, marketing to customers, energy assessments, measure installation, and quality control.
• Outputs. Metrics resulting from the activities. These tend to be measurable "bean counting" results (e.g., provide outreach events at five community fairs). The outputs can be tracked or measured to ensure the activities occur as expected.
• Outcomes. Expected outcomes that result from the program activities beginning in the first year. When possible, specific goals are attached to those outcomes and can be split to reflect short-term and long-term outcomes. Examples of short-term include annual energy savings, participating customers, and trade allies. Long-term outcomes are the stretch goals or sustainable outcomes resulting from program activities, such as "establish an energy-efficient industry" and "the measure becomes standard practice." These may be associated with a full
program plan cycle.
Based on the reviewed logic model, the basic activities for the SBDI program are (1) program outreach, (2) assessments, (3) proposals, (4) project installs, (5) QC inspections, and (6) customer satisfaction. The inputs and resources all seem to be reasonable, given how the program was launched. Based on feedback we heard during the evaluation, it also appears that DNV and FSG have accomplished most of or all the output targets.
Outcomes also appear to be reasonable expectations for the SBDI program. However, there may be one customer satisfaction outcome that is a "stretch" goal: Idaho Power gains a deeper insight into

9 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
customer needs that could be used to tailor future C&I Retrofit programs. We are not sure how this will be accomplished, given the current communication processes and level of feedback collected.
The overall program flow shows the interaction between customers, DNV, FSG, and Idaho Power at each stage of the program process. It is a nice visual representation of which firm is responsible for each activity. In addition to the overall program process flow, specific task workflows are included for
multiple activities:
• call routing situations,
• email responses,
• assessment workflow,
• installation workflow,
• customer satisfaction survey workflow,
• QC inspection workflow,
• complaint resolution, and
• customer list scrubbing.
Outreach Plan. The Outreach Plan thoroughly documents DNV’s and FSG's strategies to meet the SBDI program objectives. It repeats some of the information in the Program Operations Manual.
It outlines staff roles and responsibilities and defines expectations, such as key performance indicators. Engagement steps detail how the implementers will target customers and the regional rollout.
The manual includes scripts for staff calling customers, visiting customers, and reaching out to contractors. Customer satisfaction survey questions are included as well. Installers were also provided with scripts for setting appointments with customers.
Like the Program Operations Manual, the Outreach Plan contains flowcharts for customer engagement,
SBDI assessments, and project installations. It also outlines the contractor onboarding and training process and risk mitigation procedures.
Detailed outreach results are discussed in Section 2.3.2. The results of the Customer Satisfaction
Survey we reviewed are discussed in Section 2.3.3. Reporting documents reviewed are covered in Section 2.3.4.
2.3.2 Marketing and Outreach
Outreach for the SBDI program involves a two-pronged approach. Customers must be recruited to
participate in the program, and contractors are needed to install the lighting equipment.
Customers. DNV was responsible for marketing and outreach to customers based on a list provided by Idaho Power. Outreach began in November 2019, using several methods to inform targeted customers.
Figure 4. Outreach to Customers

In-person information sessions Program mailers Email blasts Outbound calls

10 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
A key challenge for the program has been the eligibility requirements. Idaho Power's objective with this program is to focus on very small businesses, using less than 25,000 kWh annually. This requirement
makes it more of a targeted program than the typical FSG model for SBDI programs, which have higher savings thresholds, and FSG has adjusted.
Throughout the Eastern region rollout, the SBDI team established a scrubbing process to identify
customers most likely to meet the eligibility requirements of the SBDI program. Idaho Power sent direct-mail letters to customers inviting them to participate in the program. Email outreach in March of 2021 was found to be less effective than direct mail letters and follow-up calls. FSG made follow-up calls to
customers who received letters, offering another opportunity to hear about the program and to confirm their interest in participating. Call scripts are available to staff conducting outbound calls. Customers can also call a number on mailers and emails to request more information about the program. In-person visits were also used as outreach, as needed, but were suspended once COVID-19 impacted the safety of walk-in appointments.
As customers responded to the letters and follow-up calls, lighting assessments were scheduled.
Customers who agreed to have LEDs installed at their facility were scheduled for project installation beginning in January 2020. DNV reported that approximately 60 percent of the assessments came from outbound calling, another 10 to 15 percent from FSG staff visits to customers, and roughly 10 percent resulted from Idaho Power energy advisor outreach.
Customer interest in SBDI was on the rise when the COVID-19 pandemic occurred. Idaho Power suspended on-site customer activity for the SBDI program offering end of March and removed the suspension early in October 2020, with on-site activity adhering to COVID-19 safety protocols. When on-site activity resumed in the fall, the company's third-party program implementer worked to reinstate equipment installers and reconnect with eligible customers who had signed up for a lighting assessment or project installation before COVID-19 restrictions. There were 139 project installations performed in 2020, along with 11 post-installation inspections.
Contractors. Recruitment of contractors begins about four months in advance of the launch date for the region to ensure contractors are trained and ready once customers are contacted. The process begins with Idaho Power identifying electrical contractors who have participated in other Idaho Power
programs, then additional contractors are added to the list if needed. An Idaho Power representative reaches out to gauge interest in the program; those leads are forwarded to FSG for additional outreach and training. Once contractors indicate interest, FSG sends them paperwork and discusses the detailed program requirements.
Figure 5. Outreach to Contractors

IPC identification Initial interest FSG outreach Paperwork and training

11 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
The figure below outlines the outcomes of the outreach conducted by FSG during the first phase of the SBDI program in Idaho Power's Eastern region. All six contractors that filled out paperwork are
considered “participating” contractors and completed at least a few projects. Three contractors installed projects throughout the entire Eastern region timeframe, while three withdrew, asking FSG not to allocate them any more projects.
Figure 6. Overview of Contractor Participation in the Eastern Region

Although no contractors in the Eastern region declined participation at the initial stages of contact due to heavy workload, it has been mentioned in the Southern region as a reason for not participating.
2.3.3 Implementation
We received feedback from the program implementers (DNV and FSG), installation contractors, and contractors missing paperwork and reviewed customer feedback collected by DNV to understand how the implementation of the SBDI program has progressed in the Eastern region. Overall, implementation has gone well for a first-phase rollout. All groups indicate there were lessons learned along the way, with many adjustments made within the Eastern phase and applied in the Southern region as it begins.
Implementer feedback. Implementers reported a collaborative working relationship between all parties and that communication was working well. Many lessons were learned during the Eastern region rollout, and adjustments were made in Eastern and for subsequent regions as they are learned.
Initial challenges in the Eastern region that have been overcome include lack of customer trust in non-local companies, recruiting contractors and managing their workload, and adjusting to the four to six week installation timeframe.
DNV and FSG found that customers in Idaho prefer to support local businesses. While local contractors would be used for installations, DNV and FSG are responsible for outreach and assessments. Both firms were able to provide local staff, and a local phone number was assigned to FSG.
As outreach to customers became more productive, and assessments were scheduled, DNV developed a customer journey tracker to track customers through stages of participation from outreach to QC. The results of the tracker are provided to Idaho Power monthly for progress reporting.
List for outreach (n=22)
Unable to reach (n=5)
Interested (n=14)
Participating: Filled out paperwork (n=6)
Active(n=3)
Withdrew (n=3)
Incomplete paperwork (n=8)
Declined participation (n=3)
Too busy with other work (n=0)
Program pricing too low (n=3)

12 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
FSG reports that approximately 95 percent of customers that decide they will proceed with the installation of recommended lighting do so at their assessment. The others take anywhere from a day
or two to months to get approvals from landlords or corporate offices. For customers that decide not to move forward with lighting installations after the assessments, FSG provided the following as common reasons they have been given:
• moving in the future,
• may not continue the business,
• corporate requirements conflict, and
• unable to get permission from their landlord.
FSG also learned how to balance SBDI projects with contractors' existing workload. To respect their time and existing clients, FSG tries to give contractors a batch of SBDI customers in an area with a two-week window for scheduling so they can reasonably fit the projects in around other work and keep a steady pace. This process has worked out well for the three contractors completing the bulk of the projects in the Eastern region.
Participant satisfaction. As the prime contractor administering the program, DNV sends surveys to all customers that receive assessments and new lighting through the SBDI program. After installations are completed, DNV sends each customer an invitation to complete an online survey about their program experience.
We reviewed the results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey reported by DNV to Idaho Power. To avoid overburdening customers, we did not survey customers again for this evaluation effort.
DNV sent customer satisfaction surveys to 98 program participants in 2020, of which 27 surveys were returned, for a 27 percent response rate, which is in line with DNV's 25 percent suggested minimum.
Overall satisfaction from respondents was high and indicated no major issues.
Key highlights include the following:
• Nearly 89 percent of respondents said they were very satisfied with the program
• All respondents reported they were very satisfied with the equipment installed.
• All respondents found the program easy to participate in, with nearly 93 percent indicating the program was very easy.
• All respondents reported they would likely recommend the program to other small businesses, with nearly 93 percent saying they were very likely to recommend it.
• When asked how their opinion of Idaho Power has changed since participating in the program, just over 48 percent of respondents reported having a more favorable opinion of Idaho Power. Nearly 52 percent of respondents reported no change in opinion.
Active installers. We talked with four contractors, all small businesses, who completed at least one installation in the Eastern region. Three of them installed between 40 and 150 projects; the other withdrew after installations in one city before COVID-19 restrictions were put in place.
Three participating contractors thought communication with FSG worked well once the initial bugs were worked out. They thought FSG was good about getting projects set up and getting information out about projects, including breaking down projects so the contractor knew what to expect and how long it might take.
As part of the recruitment process with installation contractors, FSG discusses the features of the program, the compensation, and added benefits. Two of the installation contractors shared benefits they had realized from working with customers through the SBDI program.

13 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
It was good exposure and teaching for the apprentices who experienced different
projects and ways to wire lights.
The program kept us busy and the money flowing in.
It spread my business name to bring in more work.
I'm happy they were able to recycle so many CFL and metal halide bulbs, so they
didn't go in the trash.
SBDI participation did not require any major modifications to contractors' overall business practices. Contractors adapted to the SBDI program requirements and processes as they were developed in the
Eastern region.
Contractors reported that customers were typically very happy to be getting new equipment for free from Idaho Power. The few customer questions or concerns usually involved (1) the lighting color of the
LEDs they would receive, (2) misunderstanding that they were only getting new bulbs but not new fixtures, (3) that not all fixtures would be upgraded, and (4) a couple of cases of property damage that were resolved.
We asked contractors to rate their overall satisfaction with the SBDI program on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not satisfied, and 5 is very satisfied. Three of the four responding contractors provided ratings of 3, 4, and 5. The fourth did not rate the program. Some of the challenges shared by contractors included increased insurance needs, incorrect material counts, and customers not ready for installations.
One contractor said it took them a few tries to get the required paperwork correct. Three of the contractors also mentioned having to increase their insurance to be able to participate. A few times, the contractors got the wrong materials for jobs. In those instances, FSG would get it resolved; local staff
would even run new materials to the job site. One contractor had issues with customers not being ready for installations when they arrived, even with notice of what they needed to do. FSG suggested it was alright to reschedule those appointments, but that affected the contractor's work schedule and staffing.
All four of the contractors we spoke with had previous experience with other Idaho Power energy efficiency programs and highly praised those experiences. While the participating contractors found some benefit to having the SBDI projects identified, they also admitted that it reduced some of the
customer interaction and ability to customize systems or projects for customers. It also put them in a difficult spot when customers had questions or concerns.
Compared with other Idaho Power programs, contractors felt the compensation for the SBDI
installations was marginal and made it difficult to break even if there were unanticipated problems.
It didn't really leave me any margin - it was awfully tight.
Any extra travel blew any margin.
The process worked well, but I would decline future work if FSG could not find
a way to provide money for a pre-visit.
Some projects lost money, and some made money. I think I came out about
even in the end, but I had to closely watch projects to cover costs.
One selling point to overcome the conservative reimbursement was the possibility of additional work with customers where they installed new lighting. This benefit was realized for one of the four responding contractors, but not the other three. Two contractors have experienced no additional work, and one has had less than $500 in additional business from the SBDI customers.

14 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
When asked what worked best for them with the SBDI program, contractors mentioned how well the process worked with FSG. They generally liked that jobs were set up for them, and they had a steady
workflow. Contractors appreciated that FSG was pleasant to work with, had good administrative policies, and provided prompt payment. Even the contractor that withdrew from the program noted that the overall experience with FSG was good.
However, even with positive experiences with the SBDI program, all four contractors had suggestions for some minor improvements to the program.
I would like to see better internal communication at FSG. There were a few times we
had issues getting the right parts for the installations. The person at FSG's material
storage could be more knowledgeable about what is needed.
We think there could be a better way of prepping the job. Maybe giving the
contractors an extra $65-$75 per job to inspect and get it ready. This would help
avoid issues with furniture not moved or incorrect materials for the job.
I think it would be nice to have a recycling bin at the materials warehouse for more of
the removed equipment. It would be one more step in recycling more material.
FSG could provide better descriptions of the installation project. We ended up
needing lifts that were not mentioned when we were assigned the project.
Installers missing paperwork. Eight contractors FSG talked with expressed interest in providing installation services through the SBDI program, but they never completed the required paperwork. We reached four of those contractors to ask them a few brief questions about why they did not proceed with the program. All four have worked on other Idaho Power programs in the past and enjoy working with those programs and Idaho Power.
Two of the contractors do not remember receiving the paperwork at all, but COVID-19 also made things hectic during the timeframe when the program launched. The other two contractors received the paperwork; one early in the program launch, the other learned of it after the October restart.
The two contractors who remembered receiving the paperwork provided a few reasons for not completing the paperwork and participating in the SBDI program. The primary issue mentioned by a couple of the contractors was the amount of insurance required. One contractor was curious why they
needed more insurance for SBDI than they needed for other Idaho Power programs or what the state already requires.
One contractor did not feel comfortable with how FSG handled their questions about participation
logistics. They felt there was a lack of direction or plan on things like storage of materials or what would happen if there were damaged materials or customers made warranty claims. With that uncertainty, the contractor felt that the compensation was insufficient for them to absorb potential unforeseen costs.
When we asked the contractors what could be done to attract more contractors to install lighting through the program, they provided a few ideas that Idaho Power and FSG are aware of:
• Adopt more reasonable insurance requirements for the SBDI program.
• Increase the compensation to contractors for installations. Contractors mentioned barely
covering their labor costs for most projects and situations where poor communication, missing parts, or unprepared customers caused them to lose money.
• FSG could communicate better about individual projects and answer questions more thoroughly about the overall process. Increased comfort with the logistics would ease contractor concerns.

15 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
Based on conversations with participating contractors, FSG communication may have improved over the course of execution in the Eastern region.
2.3.4 Reporting
We reviewed an April 2021 monthly report and the SBDI Program Annual Report PY1 from DNV to Idaho Power. Every month, DNV reports field activity (calls, assessments, installations, savings, etc.), installations completed per installer, the average installation time, and quality control summaries.
Based on a review of the summaries for the field activity and installations by contractor, the timeframe for reporting was unclear. We assume it was for the month before the report, but it would be nice to have that stated in the reporting. In addition, it would have been interesting to see the build-up each
month compared to prior months.
For example, a table showing contractors on each row and months across the top (or transpose them) would be clear when contractors began installations, their progress over time, and if they drop off. A
"total" column could be added at the end of the region timeframe to see the level of effort from each contractor. If process feedback is sought from installation contractors in subsequent regions, knowing their level of effort and delivery timeframe is useful.
Table 4. Example of Cumulative Installations by Contractor
Installer “Month 1” “Month 2” “Month 3” “Month…” Total
AAA Electric 8 15 20 4 47
BBB Electric 12 2 0 0 14
CCC Electric 1 6 7
DDD Electric 1 15 16
A similar process could be used for the field activity summary to provide a "rolling history" of the outbound calls, assessments, installations, kilowatt-hours saved, etc.

A-1 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTER INTERVIEW GUIDE

IMPLEMENTER INTERVIEW GUIDE Idaho Power SBDI Evaluation
Interviewee(s)
Interviewer(s)
Program/Area of responsibility
Date(s):
In-depth interviews will be conducted by senior Tetra Tech staff via telephone. The interviews will be semi-structured. Therefore, the following interview protocol is only a guide to ensure certain topics are covered, but evaluators will follow the flow of the interview and modify questions as needed to fit the interviewee's circumstance and flow of conversation. We will attempt to schedule interviews with respondents in advance to accommodate each implementer's schedule. Interviewers will adjust the probing to limit interview time to 45 minutes.
Introduction
Hello, may I speak to ______? My name is _______, with Tetra Tech. Idaho Power has hired us to evaluate their Small Business Direct Install program. I would like to ask you some questions about your experience delivering the SBDI program since it launched. The information you provide will assist us in assessing the program and finding ways for the program to serve the nonresidential market most effectively. The interview should less than an hour. Before we begin, is it okay to record our call? This is for note-taking purposes to make sure we accurately represent your responses. A. Program Role
Provide brief overview of the roles and responsibilities as the evaluator understands them. (IPC, DNV prime, FSG subcontractor, installation contractors) 1) Is our understanding of your current role in Idaho Power's SBDI program correct? How have your responsibilities with the program changed since it was launched?
2) How has the interaction between the parties (IPC, DNV, FSG, and installation contractors) been working?
• How does current documentation (e.g. program operations manual, outreach plan, reporting) facilitate the interaction and communication between parties?
• What have been some of the successes of these interactions; do you have suggestions for improvements?

A-2 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
B. Program Design and Marketing 3) How were the target numbers of assessments and installations determined? 4) Outreach Plan (reviewed)
• What have been the more effective outreach methods to generate interest in the assessments? What has not worked as you expected?
o Direct mailers, outbound calls, walk-ins
o When will street sweeps pick up again

• What types of challenges have you encountered with the customer lists and eligibility requirements?
• What steps have been taken to overcome them? C. Program Delivery (Program Operations Manual Reviewed)
6) What is the scheduling process for the Assessments? What is the typical timeframe from customer call to assessment visit?
7) What are the most common upgrades identified during an assessment? What else are you reviewing? 8) What proportion of assessment customers sign the project proposal immediately? How long can it take others to consider the projects? When do you typically follow-up with them to prompt them to move ahead (30 day suggestion)?
9) What are the most common reasons customers go ahead with projects? Why don't others move forward? (Selling, moving, suspicious, no benefit, etc) Is this information tracked against customers that have been contacted? 10) Who is responsible for getting customer status updates into CRM? How is the data entry
checked for accuracy?
11) How is the installation timeframe of 4-6 weeks working so far?
12) Have you had any issues procuring materials? How has that been resolved?

A-3 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
13) What challenges have there been… a. reaching installation contractors? What methods have been most effective?
b. recruiting installation contractors? How have they been overcome?
c. retaining installation contractors? What else can the program do? How much is on the
contractor?
14) Who has been completing the QC Inspections? What percent of the projects have been checked? What is the selection process? What are the typical findings from the inspections? 15) How long does it usually take participants to return their satisfaction survey? What proportion are you getting back? 16) The results of the customer satisfaction survey look pretty good. What are some of the issues reported through the survey? 17) Have there been any complaints throughout the process in the first region? At what stage are they most likely to occur? How were they resolved?
18) Tracking appears to be managed through the CRM system. At what point do you provide the tracking data to Idaho Power? How is the data checked for accuracy?
D. Regional Rollout
19) Can you talk a little bit about how you are doing the geographic rollout?
20) What lessons have you learned from the rollout of the first region?
21) What changes will be made as you roll out additional regions?
E. Evaluation
22) What do you see as future challenges for the program?
23) What do you hope to learn from the evaluation?
24) Are there specific topics we should investigate with installation contractors? Thank you for your time today. Those are all the questions I have.

B-1 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
APPENDIX B: INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE
Idaho Power - SBDI Program Evaluation Installation Contractor Interview Protocol
Note: Because senior staff will be conducting interviews, contractor interviews will be semi-structured.
Therefore, the following interview protocol is only a guide to ensure certain topics are covered, but evaluators will follow the flow of the interview and modify questions as needed to fit the interviewee's circumstances.
NAME: ___________________________________________________________
COMPANY: ________________________________________________________
PHONE: ___________________________________________________________
INTERVIEWER: _____________________________________________________
DATE COMPLETED: __________________ LENGTH: ______________
My name is _______, with Tetra Tech. Idaho Power has hired us to evaluate their Small Business
Direct Install program. I would like to ask you some questions about your experience with the Small Business program. You would have completed work for this program as a subcontractor to FSG. The information you provide will assist us in assessing this program and finding ways for the program to serve the small business market most effectively. This interview should take approximately 30 minutes of your time. Before we begin, is it okay to record our call? This is for note taking purposes to make sure we accurately represent your responses.
Firmographics
F1. To get us started, could you briefly tell me a little bit about your business (or position)? What types of services do you offer? Probe for approximate number of projects completed or equipment installed by type in 2020 (or for a more typical year).
F2. How many employees (full-time equivalents) does your company employ?
Program Involvement
P1. How did you become involved with the SBDI program? Were you already working with Idaho Power or did FSG reach out to you?
P2. How are you currently receiving information about the SBDI program? Are you receiving enough notice about the projects you are assigned to get them completed within the expected timeframe? Is there any other information you would like to receive in order to make the process more effective or efficient?
P3. What is the process for completing work through the SBDI program? How many projects have you completed?
P4. How often do you interact with FSG staff? How would you characterize that interaction?

B-2 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
P5. Has your involvement with FSG and the SBDI program affected your general business practices?
How? (Probe for adjustments to quality of installs, equipment stocked, recommendations to other customers)
P6. Have you completed any follow-on or additional work for any of the customers where you initially
installed equipment under the Small Business Program? What was the nature of that work?
Customer Interactions
C1. Who are you typically working with at the client site when you install equipment (e.g., owner, manager, etc.)?
C2. What questions do customers typically have when you install equipment through the program?
C3. Do customers ever talk to you about why they decided to install equipment? If so, what are some of the typical reasons? What benefits do they mention from participating in the program?

General Wrap-Up (All)
G1. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the program on a five-point scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied?
G2. What is working best, in your opinion, with the SBDI program? What is the primary benefit to your company from participating in the SBDI program?
G3. Are there any suggestions you have regarding the Small Business program and your work with FSG?
G4. (If not already mentioned) Are you aware of other Idaho Power energy efficiency programs? Which ones? Do you have any involvement with these programs – why or why not?
G5. Are there any additional comments you would like to share? Anything I should have asked about but haven't?
Those are all the questions I have. Thank you very much for your time today.

C-1 Idaho Power Small Business Direct Install Program – 2020 Evaluation Results. October 22, 2021
APPENDIX C: MISSING PAPERWORK QUESTIONS
Idaho Power - SBDI Program Evaluation Questions for Contractors Missing Paperwork
We sent the eight contractors that expressed interest in the SBDI program—but did not finish their
paperwork—an email for feedback. We ended up calling these contractors and asking them the three questions over the phone.
Hello [name],
We have been hired by Idaho Power to review their Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) program. We would like to get your feedback about your experience, which will help Idaho Power improve the program.
I understand from discussions with FSG that your company talked with FSG and began paperwork to participate but did not complete any installations through the program. In order to respect your time, I was hoping you could respond by email to the three short questions below:
1) Did you receive the SBDI paperwork before the program suspended due to COVID-19, or after it relaunched in October 2020?
2) Can you please tell me about the paperwork you received from FSG and why you did not complete it?
3) What could FSG or Idaho Power have done to increase the likelihood of your company participating in the program?

As a third-party evaluator, we can keep your responses confidential. If you would rather discuss your
feedback on the program by phone, please reach out to me and I will set up a call at a time convenient for you.
I greatly appreciate your attention to this request!
Regards,
Kimberly

FINAL REPORT Idaho Power Home Energy Reports
Process Evaluation

Date: June 9, 2021

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page i

Table of contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Evaluation overview 2
1.2 Key findings 2
1.3 Recommendations 3
2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Program overview 4
2.2 Evaluation overview 4
2.3 Layout of report 4
3 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Data collection 5 3.1.1 In-depth Interviews 5
3.2 Program theory review 5
3.3 Program materials review 5
3.4 Randomization check 6
4 PROCESS FINDINGS AND TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 7
4.1 Vendor and program staff interviews 7
4.2 Program logic review 8
4.3 Program materials review 9 4.3.1 Sample HER Reports 9 4.3.2 Opt-Out CSA Call Log 9 4.3.3 HER Year 1 Program Summary Report 11 4.3.4 Randomization check 12 4.3.5 Other findings 16
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 17
5.1 Key findings 17
5.2 Recommendations 17
EXAMPLE HER REPORT.................................................................................................................... 19
PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................................. 21
TRADE ALLY INTERVIEW GUIDE ...................................................................................................... 24
List of figures Figure 4-1. HER Program Logic Model ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4-2. Reason for HER Opt-out ....................................................................................................................................... 11
List of tables
Table 4-1. HER Participant Reasons for Opt-out .................................................................................................................... 10 Table 4-2. Randomization checks: Original assignments........................................................................................................ 14 Table 4-3. Randomization checks: Current assignments ........................................................................................................ 15

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power works with a third-party vendor, Aclara Technologies LLC (Aclara), to run the Home Energy Reports (HER)
Program. The primary objective of the HER Program is to encourage customer engagement with electricity use to produce
average annual behavioral savings of 1 to 3%. Secondary objectives are to maintain or increase customer satisfaction with
Idaho Power and encourage customer engagement with electric usage, including utilization of online tools and increased
participation in other energy efficiency programs.
The periodic reports provide customers with information about how their home’s energy use compares with similar homes.
The home energy reports also give a breakdown of household energy use and offer suggestions to help customers change
their energy-related behaviors. The vendor estimates energy savings that result from customers receiving the report by
statistically comparing the energy use of the report recipients against the energy use of a similar control group.
From August 2018 to December 2019, 24,976 customers received HERs with savings of 8,444,746 kWh; this evaluation
covers that time frame. The program expanded to approximately another 108,000 customers in 2020 and switched to
calendar-year reporting. In addition to adding more participants, the expansion included an option to choose between email
and paper reports.
1.1 Evaluation overview
DNV conducted a process evaluation for this program. The key evaluation tasks were:
• Program and vendor staff interviews
• Program theory review
• Program materials review
• Randomization check
• Reporting
1.2 Key findings
1. The reports are well-designed and easy to understand. The reports include utility branding, convey industry-
standard information, and include contact numbers and methods to find further information.
2. The program periodically reviews and updates the reports. The program staff and vendor review and update tips in
the reports at the beginning of each heating/cooling season. They also adjusted the tips during the pandemic to
eliminate the ones that would involve in-person contractor interaction or require customers to enter public spaces.
Those tips were replaced with more general energy-saving tips.
3. The randomization checks confirmed that the treatment and control groups are sufficiently balanced. Ten out of
the 11 variables we tested showed balance across the treatment and control groups. The one variable that didn’t
(whether the record has a non-missing floor size) is of limited importance.
4. The overall program opt-out rate is lower than the industry average. In year one, the program had a 0.64% opt-out
rate. In year two, it was 0.22%. The industry average is approximately 1%.
5. Savings are estimated using a difference in difference approach that follows industry standard practices. Opt-
outs remain in the savings calculations and homes that have undeliverable or returned mail remain in the energy saving
calculations. Move-outs are removed.
6. The program has a complex set of treatment and control groups. In year one, there were four treatment “waves.”
Each wave was split into a treatment group and a control group. In year two, one new wave was added and the
remaining waves were split so that half of the wave received bi-monthly reports and the other half received quarterly
reports (B/Q split). In year two, the vendor also optimized the treatment groups by removing households predicted to

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 3
have low savings from both the treatment and control groups. In year three, the program added another treatment wave
that consisted of customers that were recycled from the original control groups along with new customers that had never
been in any of the previous treatment waves.
7. The vendor’s optimization of the treatment group may underestimate savings for IPC. DNV identified two
anomalies. First, the time period used for the optimization process included some of the treatment period. This would
cause treatment group customers who reduced their consumption below the optimization threshold, due to the Home
Energy Reports, to be dropped from the design. Comparable customers in the control group would not be removed.
Second, the households that stopped receiving reports due to optimization were removed from the savings calculations.
Typical practice is to leave those homes in the calculations because savings persist for some time after reports stop.
8. The vendor did not provide dates when households moved out or stopped receiving reports for other reasons
such as optimization. The lack of dates did not hinder the process evaluation, but a future impact evaluation will likely
require them.
9. Joint savings are not accounted for in the savings calculations. Excluding joint savings from the monthly
calculations is standard practice and should not be connoted as a negative. Idaho Power should be aware that impact
evaluations typically do identify savings from treatment households that are claimed by other programs and remove
them from the savings attributed to the HER program to avoid double counting of those savings.
10. DNV identified minor non-compliances with industry best practices. There were some minor errors in the annual
report provided by the vendor. Data was also left on an FTP site for longer than necessary.
11. The most common reason cited for opting out was that information in the reports was inaccurate. This is a
common response to home energy reports.
1.3 Recommendations
1. DNV recommends that the vendor update its data tracking to reflect additional treatments and conduct tests
that include the original and additional treatments. Best practice when making changes such as the B/Q split or the
optimization step is to keep all original customers in the data set and denote the changes as an additional treatment.
Savings for baseline treatment and the updated treatment should be estimated each against the entire original data set.
These different savings estimates can then also be tested for statistically significant differences to assess whether the
change affected the outcomes. It is even more important to follow this practice when there are activities such as the
optimization that the vendor described.
2. Before an impact evaluation, the vendor should append dates that households went inactive and/or moved out.
If these dates are not available in the vendor’s databases, they can be determined based on Idaho Power billing data.
The inactive dates can be set to the date when the customer stopped receiving service from Idaho Power.
3. Ask the vendor to remove old data from its FTP folders and implement a process to remove data from such
locations as soon as possible after the data transfer is complete. Then confirm the deletion. Any data left
accessible through FTP is vulnerable to theft. While the likelihood of any such theft is very low, removing the data
entirely removes the risk altogether. Note, this recommendation also applies to the data IPC has shared with DNV as a
part of the current evaluation.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 4
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program overview
Idaho Power works with a third-party vendor, Aclara Technologies LLC (Aclara), to run the Home Energy Reports (HER)
Program. The primary objective of the HER Program is to encourage customer engagement with electricity use to produce
average annual behavioral savings of 1 to 3%. Secondary objectives are to maintain or increase customer satisfaction with
Idaho Power and encourage customer engagement with electric usage, including utilization of online tools and increased
participation in other energy efficiency programs.
The periodic reports provide customers with information about how their home’s energy use compares with similar homes.
The Home Energy Reports also give a breakdown of household energy use and offer suggestions to help customers change
their energy-related behaviors. The vendor estimates energy savings that result from customers receiving the report by
completing a statistical comparison of the energy use of the report recipients against the energy use of a similar control
group.
From August 2018 to December 2019, 24,976 customers received HERs with savings of 8,444,746 kWh; this evaluation
covers that time frame. The program expanded to approximately another 108,000 customers in 2020 and switched to
calendar year tracking. In addition to adding more participants, the expansion included an option to choose between email
and paper reports.
2.2 Evaluation overview
DNV conducted a process evaluation for this program. The key evaluation tasks were:
• Program and vendor staff interviews
• Program theory review
• Program materials review
• Randomization check
• Reporting
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, Process findings, reports findings relevant to program processes and materials.
Section 5, Conclusions and recommendations, lays out the key findings and provides recommendations for program
improvement.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 5
3 METHODS
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV used to evaluate the program.
3.1 Data collection
3.1.1 In-depth Interviews
DNV uses in-depth interviews to obtain a fuller, richer, and more tangible understanding of the complex issues associated
with program delivery than close-ended surveys provide. Such interviews help devise solutions to participation barriers and
allow us to explore how various market factors could impact future program design and delivery. We design semi-structured
interviews to be flexible. This allows the interviewer to probe for depth and go “off script” when interesting and useful
information comes up. When interviewers have the flexibility and training to persist and politely probe a little deeper, more
relevant information can surface.
Our process for developing and fielding the in-depth interviews was similar to that of the surveys. We first designed
instruments and provided them to Idaho Power for review. After revising the instruments, we conducted phone calls with the
program managers and the program vendors using those instruments as guides. Sampling for the in-depth interviews was
unnecessary because of their qualitative nature and the very limited number of respondents to contact. We conducted an in-
depth interview and several follow-ups to resolve questions based on initial analyses with the HER program vendor. We also
completed several conversations with the IPC program manager. The interview guide can be found in APPENDIX AB.
3.2 Program theory review
The program theory review is the primary means of determining if the program design meets industry best practices. It provides
a check that the program is well thought out, reasonably designed to achieve its goals given reasonable assumptions, and
has considered short- and long-term consequences of the program. Questions we explored during this task included:
• Has the program enumerated the market barriers it is trying to overcome?
• Is the program designed to effectively lower those market barriers?
• Will lowering those market barriers lead to the outcomes the program seeks?
• Are assumptions and external factors considered and accounted for?
• Have negative consequences and unintended consequences been considered?
• Are key stakeholder interests reflected or considered?
The program did not have a written logic model, so we produced one.
3.3 Program materials review
The information gathered during the program materials review was used to assess program design, administration, and
implementation. DNV reviewed the following materials:
Sample HER reports: DNV reviewed numerous sample reports to evaluate program design and use of industry best practices.
CSA Call Log: DNV read the CSA call log from September 17, 2018, to February 20, 2020, to help analyze common questions
and reasons for participant opt-out.
Home Energy Report Year 1 Final Program Summary by Aclara ACE: Aclara implemented the program and prepared this
report on the final year one program outcomes (covering July 2017-July 2018). DNV reviewed the report for accuracy,
correctness, and best practices.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 6
3.4 Randomization check
DNV received several data files from IPC and Aclara. These data files included service point ids, account ids, treatment
wave, treatment/control group, number of bedrooms, floor space, household members, tenure, construction year, and
average monthly consumption. DNV loaded these files into a statistical program and checked:
• Assignment to treatment or control group and wave
• Within wave, mean differences in each of the available demographic variables using a simple t-test. We used a p-value
of 0.05 as indicating statistically significant differences. These checks examined differences of the entire treatment
group versus the entire control group for each wave.1

1 In other words, they collapsed the quarterly and bi-monthly reporting split that Aclara made in year 2 to test the entire treatment group rather than each sub-group.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 7
4 PROCESS FINDINGS AND TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides detailed findings on program operations and materials. The evaluation included in-depth interviews, a
review of program logic, and a review of program materials.
4.1 Vendor and program staff interviews
The in-depth interview with the HER vendor and
conversations with program staff revealed the
following:
• Monthly and aggregate savings are calculated
using the difference in difference approach
with no covariates.
• Home Energy Reports that are undeliverable
and returned are included in savings
calculations, as are any participants who
voluntarily opt-out. Households that move out
of the home are excluded from both the
treatment and control groups and stop
receiving reports if they are in the treatment
group. These are all accepted standard
industry practices for HER programs.
• The vendor excludes any homes with
insufficient data, negative usage, and/or
missing data from the analysis.
• Idaho Power does not send Aclara tracking
information about participation in other
programs. As such, Aclara cannot estimate
the amount of savings from HER program
participants that are accounted for and
claimed by the other programs (“joint” savings). This will likely result in double-counting of these savings until the HER
program receives an impact evaluation. If the other programs have already claimed those savings, standard impact
evaluation practice is to remove them from the HER program savings to avoid double-counting.
• Custom tips are revised during each season and updated at the beginning of each statement-of-work period. Program
staff and the vendor collaborate during the content review to revise any tips, as needed.
• The program made slight adjustments because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including eliminating tips that suggest
contractor interaction in the home or require customers to enter public spaces. Typically, the final tip has been related to
another IPC program, but has shifted to present a more general energy efficiency tip.
The pilot program was divided into five treatment segments:
• T1: customers with high electric heating use in the winter
• T2: customers added in year 2, who were originally removed from T1 due to insufficient data on the household heating
source for a comparison group
• T3: customers with high year-round energy use, >12,000 kWh/year
Key process findings
1. The reports are well-designed and easy to understand.
2. The program periodically reviews and updates the reports.
3. The randomization checks confirmed that the treatment and
control groups are sufficiently balanced.
4. The overall program opt-out rate is lower than the industry
average.
5. Savings are estimated using a difference in difference approach
that follows industry standard practices.
6. The program has a complex set of treatment and control
groups.
7. The vendor’s optimization of the treatment group may
underestimate savings for IPC
8. The vendor did not provide dates when households moved out
or stopped receiving reports.
9. Joint savings are not accounted for.
10. DNV identified several minor non-compliances with industry
best practices.
11. The most common reason cited for opting out was that
information in the reports was inaccurate.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 8
• T4: customers with medium year-round energy use, 9,000-12,000 kWh/year
• T5: customers with low year-round energy use. <9,000 kWh/year
In year 2, the vendor made two changes:
• Members of T1, T3, T4, and T5 were split so that one group in each treatment received a quarterly report (Q) and the
other received a bi-monthly report (B).
• After splitting, Aclara continued to test each split treatment group to the entire pre-split control group. For example, T1Q
treatments were tested against all controls in both T1Q and T1B. This is not an industry standard practice though it
does not undermine the design. The two treatments can be tested in a single model.
• In August of 2018, Aclara optimized the treatment groups and removed customers who had low savings at that point.
The two factors were a) an always-on percentage of less than 10% (T3, T4, and T5) and b) T5 group: rounded usage of
less than 7,300 kWh from August 2017 through July 2018. Aclara stopped sending reports to this group and removed
them from both the treatment and control groups in the calculations.
DNV has two concerns related to the optimization process. First, the savings period used in the optimization process
overlapped with the treatment period. This violates the experimental design and would cause later savings calculations to be
slightly lower than they otherwise should be. This occurs because some of the treatment group with pre-treatment usage
above the threshold would have reduced consumption because of the treatments to the point where they were below the
threshold consumption used by the optimization process. The comparable control group customers would remain in the
study. This is likely a small number of households.
Second, best practice in this situation is to stop sending reports but leave the original experimental design intact. This would
negatively impact average treatment per household savings, but not total savings as the smaller savings represent “intent to
treat” savings of the whole treatment group. There is also evidence that savings persist for some time after a household
stops receiving reports which would be captured if all original households remained in the experimental design. A more
conservative approach of removing the discontinued households from the savings computations was utilized.
In year 3, additional changes were made based on learnings from the pilot:
• The T5 group was dropped from the program because savings were not high enough to be statistically significant.
• All pilot treatment groups will receive quarterly reports going forward, including those that had been receiving bi-monthly
reports in year 2.
• Idaho Power added a new treatment group (T6) consisting of customers that had not yet participated. This included
customers that had never been in any of the previous (T1 through T5) treatment or control groups. It also included
customers that were in the original (T1 through T5) control groups and were “recycled” into the new treatment group.
Before random assignment to the T6 treatment and control, a minimum annual consumption threshold of 7,000 kWh
was applied.
4.2 Program logic review
To support the process evaluation, DNV developed a logic model for the HER program using program materials and
information gathered during the in-depth interviews. The logic model is shown in Figure 4-1. This program logic is typical for
this sort of program.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 9
Figure 4-1. HER Program Logic Model

4.3 Program materials review
4.3.1 Sample HER Reports
A sample HER report is included in Appendix A. The report design consists of two pages. The first page includes a home
comparison figure, contact and account information, and an electricity use breakdown graph. The second page includes a
list of three tips, featuring pictures and approximate savings for following each provided tip. Each report contains three major
tips and each tip can have up to four sub-tips. The first two tips are based on the topic that is being addressed in the
analysis provided on the first page of the report. Typically, the third tip focused on an IPC program, but has now shifted to
provide customers with a more general energy-efficient tip because of challenges to IPC programs resulting from the
COVID-19 pandemic.
IPC provided DNV with sample HER reports. The reports are well-designed and easy to understand. The report pages
display utility branding and convey the appropriate and relevant information for program participants, including contact
numbers and places to find further information. The vendor and program staff interview revealed that the reports went
through testing before the 2020 expansion began based on participant feedback.
4.3.2 Opt-Out CSA Call Log
Idaho Power’s HER Program provides customers with customized information on their home electric energy usage. The
reports provide a comparison of their home’s usage to other similar homes. In 2019, 24,976 participants were sent reports
and because customers are automatically enrolled in the HER program, they must call to opt-out if they no longer wish to
participate at any time.
The opt-out telephone number is provided to customers on at least one page of their home energy report. Between
September 17, 2018, and February 20, 2020, eighty-eight customers called to request that they no longer receive a home
energy report. In year two, the opt-out rate was 0.22%, a decrease from the 0.64% opt-out rate in year one. The opt-out rate

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 10
among report frequency was 0.22% for quarterly report recipients and 0.20% for bi-monthly report recipients. The overall
program opt-out rate is lower than the industry average of 1%.2
DNV analyzed 85 customer service call records of customers who requested to opt out of Idaho Power’s HER program. The
IPC Customer Solutions Advisors record the date and note the reason for opt-out with every call. Of the 88 calls received, 85
included a reason for customer opt-out. Each of the 85 opt-out records was analyzed to understand reoccurring themes.
Calls were then categorized into one of six groups: inaccurate information, extenuating circumstance, already energy-
efficient, wasteful, no longer at residence, and other (Table 4-1).
Table 4-1. HER Participant Reasons for Opt-out
Opt-Out Category Definition Customer Example
Inaccurate Information
Information on report is not accurate (i.e., home size, usage statistics)
“Customer felt the information wasn't useful and there are too many variables to accurately compare homes.”
Extenuating Circumstances
Extra equipment that increases energy usage is necessary (i.e., medical equipment, business-related equipment
“Customer has medical need for climate control and is on oxygen 24 hours a day. They know where the usage is
going.”
Already energy efficient
Energy efficient upgrades have already been done in the home or the home is all-electric and more energy savings may not seem possible
“Customer lives in remote town and is all-electric, feels they
are unable to lower their consumption or be more Energy Efficient than they currently are.”
Waste Reports are a waste of paper, Idaho Power money, and/or time
“[Customer] would like to not receive the HER REPORT feels it is wasting paper and saving the environment is
important to her. She would stay on it if there was an email option.”
Moved No longer at residence
“Contract ended as the [customer] moved out in July. Customer ended her service in July and concerned she was
receiving the HER report. She felt it would be better served to the current customer of record.”

Figure 4-2 below displays the frequencies of opt-out reasons for the program year 2019. Inaccurate information represented
the largest reason for opt-outs (32%) followed by extenuating circumstances (14%) and customers who felt they were
already energy efficient enough (13%). The 28% who had another reason for opting out varied from general disinterest in
the report to feelings of privacy invasion. Nearly 60% of those who opted out for waste reasons stated they felt the report
was a waste of paper. Beginning in program year three, participants will have the option to switch to paperless reports via an
email request.
2 Sussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior Change Programs: Status and Impact, 12.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 11
Figure 4-2. Reason for HER Opt-out

4.3.3 HER Year 1 Program Summary Report
The program year 1 report by Aclara provided a thorough description of the program. DNV reviewed the report to assess
and verify findings and program information.
Aclara's test of the savings for bi-monthly versus quarterly reports did not follow industry standard practice. Best practice
when making changes such as this is to keep all original customers in the data set and denote the changes as an additional
treatment. Savings for original (unsplit) treatment should be estimated each against the entire original control group. Then
the differences between the two new treatment groups can be tested against each other to assess whether the change
affected the savings outcomes. Additionally, the difference between the quarterly and bi-monthly reports was only two
reports. Idaho Power was aware that this is a very small difference in treatment “dosage” and did not expect significant
savings differences. It was more concerned with the qualitative responses to the different report schedules.
DNV identified what appears to be minor errors in some of the tables in the report related to marking statistically significant
results in cases where reported confidence intervals include zero. The result is technically correct because the significance
test is one-sided, but the confidence interval is two-sided. However, this does cause confusion. A table from the second-year
report is included below that illustrates this discrepancy. Note that T5B and T5Q appear to have opposite conclusions
despite a margin of error that is greater than the mean in both cases.

27
12 11
7
4
24
Inaccurate
information
Extenuating
circumstances
Already energy-
efficient
Wasteful Moved Other
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
p
t
-ou
t
s

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 12

4.3.4 Randomization check
DNV attempted to validate the balance of the randomization of the HER program randomized control trials (RCT). The
vendor provided a data set containing treatment and control households that was sufficient for the process evaluation.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 13
Table 4-2 provides the balance checks on all available variables for the original assignments of the T1 through T4 segments.
The T5 segment is excluded because of the previously described decision to drop that segment from the program.
All four segments appear to be well-balanced. T1, T3, and T4 balance results are identical to the available original balance
tests provided with the original randomization. The original balance tests were limited to HHsize, HomeTenure, and
kWh_mean.
Most of the additional data elements also indicate a balanced design. Additional data elements included floor size,
bedrooms, year built, and home type. Where variables had substantial numbers of missing information, DNV also checked
that the proportion missing were similar across the two groups. Unexpectedly, one variable is statistically different across all
4 segments—the missing floor size proportion. In every case, the proportion of missing data is higher for the treatment
group. A handful (roughly 1 out of 20, in this case) of data elements proving statistically different is an expected level of
statistical anomaly given the nature of the test. However, it is extremely unlikely to be a statistical anomaly that the missing
floor size proportion is consistently statistically different across all four segments. Despite a lack of a credible explanation for
this finding, DNV does not consider this a substantial enough issue to invalidate the experimental design.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 14
Table 4-2. Randomization checks: Original assignments
Segment Variable Treatment Control Difference P-value N Mean N Mean T1 FloorSize 5,836 1,922.60 12,825 1,898.07 -24.53 0.103 T1 HHSize 7,897 3.07 16,548 3.05 -0.02 0.476
T1 HomeTenure 7,897 8.62 16,548 8.59 -0.03 0.685
T1 Year_blt 4,764 1,973.17 9,971 1,973.04 -0.13 0.782
T1 bdrms 4,134 3.29 8,560 3.28 -0.01 0.586
T1 bdrms missing binary 7,900 0.48 16,558 0.48 0.01 0.355 T1 year_blt missing binary 7,900 0.40 16,558 0.40 0.00 0.899 T1 Floorsize missing binary 7,900 0.26 16,558 0.23 -0.04 0.000 T1 Home type 1 binary 7,900 0.96 16,558 0.96 0.00 0.772
T1 Home type 4 binary 7,900 0.04 16,558 0.04 0.00 0.647
T1 kwh_mean 7,900 1,757.92 16,558 1,754.30 -3.63 0.662
T2 FloorSize 3,950 1,918.26 4,240 1,916.08 -2.18 0.917
T2 HHSize 5,815 2.92 5,819 2.94 0.02 0.562 T2 HomeTenure 5,815 9.32 5,819 9.38 0.07 0.506 T2 Year_blt 3,738 1,973.35 3,674 1,973.07 -0.28 0.607 T2 bdrms 3,506 3.32 3,463 3.34 0.02 0.475
T2 bdrms missing binary 5,826 0.40 5,826 0.41 0.01 0.417
T2 year_blt missing binary 5,826 0.36 5,826 0.37 0.01 0.218
T2 Floorsize missing binary 5,826 0.32 5,826 0.27 -0.05 0.000
T2 Home type 1 binary 5,826 0.99 5,826 0.99 0.00 0.799 T2 Home type 4 binary 5,826 0.00 5,826 0.00 0.00 0.555 T2 kwh_mean 5,826 1,792.36 5,826 1,794.29 1.94 0.863
T3 FloorSize 7,525 1,952.22 45,277 1,967.02 14.80 0.185
T3 HHSize 8,498 3.25 49,714 3.27 0.01 0.542
T3 HomeTenure 8,498 7.97 49,714 8.02 0.05 0.477
T3 Year_blt 6,625 1,981.83 38,853 1,981.87 0.04 0.902 T3 bdrms 6,111 3.41 35,892 3.43 0.02 0.088 T3 bdrms missing binary 8,501 0.28 49,727 0.28 0.00 0.578 T3 year_blt missing binary 8,501 0.22 49,727 0.22 0.00 0.679
T3 Floorsize missing binary 8,501 0.11 49,727 0.09 -0.03 0.000
T3 Home type 1 binary 8,501 0.99 49,727 0.99 0.00 0.447
T3 Home type 4 binary 8,501 0.00 49,727 0.00 0.00 0.325
T3 kwh_mean 8,501 1,272.24 49,727 1,269.58 -2.66 0.652 T4 FloorSize 3,518 1,856.59 41,265 1,866.01 9.42 0.504 T4 HHSize 4,098 2.99 46,169 3.00 0.01 0.772 T4 HomeTenure 4,098 7.79 46,169 7.73 -0.06 0.503
T4 Year_blt 3,087 1,982.72 35,443 1,983.48 0.76 0.111
T4 bdrms 2,861 3.33 32,688 3.35 0.03 0.089
T4 bdrms missing binary 4,101 0.30 46,191 0.29 -0.01 0.176 T4 year_blt missing binary 4,101 0.25 46,191 0.23 -0.01 0.035 T4 Floorsize missing binary 4,101 0.14 46,191 0.11 -0.04 0.000 T4 Home type 1 binary 4,101 0.99 46,191 0.99 0.00 0.037 T4 Home type 4 binary 4,101 0.01 46,191 0.01 0.00 0.088
T4 kwh_mean 4,101 860.34 46,191 860.51 0.17 0.959
Highlighted cells in the last column denote statistically significant differences
Table 4-3 provides the same statistics for T1-T4 and T6. The customer counts reflect active customers in their current
segment and group. Treatment group 6 was composed of new homes and homes randomly removed from the control
groups of segments T1-T4. In addition, customer counts for T1-T4 are also reduced due to the “optimization” process
applied by the program vendor. While it is not possible to check the balance of each segment immediately post-optimization
due to the lack of inactive dates, any non-random differences caused by the optimization process should still be evident in
these data.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 15
Table 4-3 has a few statistically significant differences, but nothing systemic. This indicates that the samples as they
currently stand are reasonably balanced. It is puzzling that the consistent differences in the missing floor size variable are
no longer present.
Table 4-3. Randomization checks: Current assignments
Segment Variable Treatment Control Difference P-value N Mean N Mean T1 FloorSize 4,052 1,943.98 1,026 1,906.31 -37.67 0.252 T1 HHSize 5,398 3.16 1,355 3.19 0.02 0.622 T1 HomeTenure 5,398 9.00 1,355 9.12 0.12 0.448
T1 Year_blt 3,784 1,972.81 958 1,971.80 -1.01 0.301
T1 bdrms 3,293 3.30 827 3.27 -0.03 0.343
T1 bdrms missing binary 5,400 0.39 1,356 0.39 0.00 0.996 T1 year_blt missing binary 5,400 0.30 1,356 0.29 -0.01 0.679 T1 Floorsize missing binary 5,400 0.25 1,356 0.24 -0.01 0.633 T1 Home type 1 binary 5,400 0.99 1,356 0.99 0.00 0.931 T1 Home type 4 binary 5,400 0.01 1,356 0.01 0.00 0.804
T1 kwh_mean 5,400 1,767.29 1,356 1,766.13 -1.15 0.949
T2 FloorSize 3,245 1,947.79 531 1,990.14 42.35 0.348
T2 HHSize 4,766 2.98 757 2.92 -0.06 0.316 T2 HomeTenure 4,766 9.67 757 9.69 0.02 0.933 T2 Year_blt 3,399 1,973.44 552 1,970.97 -2.47 0.022 T2 bdrms 3,185 3.33 526 3.35 0.02 0.595
T2 bdrms missing binary 4,775 0.33 758 0.31 -0.03 0.143
T2 year_blt missing binary 4,775 0.29 758 0.27 -0.02 0.353
T2 Floorsize missing binary 4,775 0.32 758 0.30 -0.02 0.250 T2 Home type 1 binary 4,775 1.00 758 1.00 0.00 0.174 T2 Home type 4 binary 4,775 0.00 758 0.00 0.00 0.100 T2 kwh_mean 4,775 1,802.75 758 1,797.87 -4.88 0.837 T3 FloorSize 4,931 2,025.51 2,938 2,027.62 2.11 0.923
T3 HHSize 5,537 3.40 3,299 3.37 -0.03 0.460
T3 HomeTenure 5,537 8.58 3,299 8.82 0.25 0.036
T3 Year_blt 4,944 1,982.64 2,952 1,981.86 -0.77 0.170 T3 bdrms 4,547 3.45 2,722 3.47 0.03 0.180 T3 bdrms missing binary 5,539 0.18 3,301 0.18 0.00 0.661 T3 year_blt missing binary 5,539 0.11 3,301 0.11 0.00 0.803 T3 Floorsize missing binary 5,539 0.11 3,301 0.11 0.00 0.977
T3 Home type 1 binary 5,539 0.99 3,301 1.00 0.00 0.033
T3 Home type 4 binary 5,539 0.00 3,301 0.00 0.00 0.666 T3 kwh_mean 5,539 1,299.51 3,301 1,291.43 -8.08 0.494 T4 FloorSize 2,246 1,906.30 2,135 1,916.63 10.33 0.684 T4 HHSize 2,594 3.13 2,420 3.16 0.03 0.575 T4 HomeTenure 2,594 8.53 2,420 8.37 -0.17 0.279
T4 Year_blt 2,287 1,983.70 2,154 1,984.14 0.45 0.545
T4 bdrms 2,120 3.35 1,978 3.38 0.03 0.246
T4 bdrms missing binary 2,594 0.18 2,420 0.18 0.00 0.994 T4 year_blt missing binary 2,594 0.12 2,420 0.11 -0.01 0.348 T4 Floorsize missing binary 2,594 0.13 2,420 0.12 -0.02 0.081 T4 Home type 1 binary 2,594 0.99 2,420 1.00 0.01 0.001 T4 Home type 4 binary 2,594 0.01 2,420 0.00 0.00 0.073
T4 kwh_mean 2,594 864.78 2,420 866.76 1.99 0.735
T6 FloorSize 60,248 1,967.58 8,120 1,957.56 -10.02 0.304
T6 HHSize 65,151 3.24 8,754 3.23 -0.01 0.601 T6 HomeTenure 65,151 8.35 8,754 8.35 0.00 0.952 T6 Year_blt 59,622 1,981.33 8,032 1,981.07 -0.26 0.385 T6 bdrms 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 T6 bdrms missing binary 65,152 1.00 8,755 1.00 0.00

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 16
Segment Variable Treatment Control Difference P-value N Mean N Mean
T6 year_blt missing binary 65,152 0.08 8,755 0.08 0.00 0.468
T6 Floorsize missing binary 65,152 0.08 8,755 0.07 0.00 0.361
T6 Home type 1 binary 65,152 1.00 8,755 1.00 0.00 0.459
T6 Home type 4 binary 65,152 0.00 8,755 0.00 0.00 0.715 T6 kwh_mean 65,152 1,212.23 8,755 1,213.40 1.17 0.838
Highlighted cells in the last column denote statistically significant differences
One additional finding related to the data provided by the vendor is that it provided variables that allowed DNV to understand
which original and current group each household was in, but it did not provide dates associated with “inactive” (no longer
receiving reports) and moved flags. This lack of dates makes it impossible to definitively identify a snapshot of the programs
immediately post-optimization.
While the process evaluation did not require these dates, an impact evaluation likely will. If these dates are not available in
the vendor’s database, they could be determined based on billing data. In this case, the date to use is when a customer
stops receiving service from IPC at a given address.
4.3.5 Other findings
During the evaluation, DNV discovered that customer usage data from 2017 is still available on Aclara’s FTP site. This
means these data were available for approximately two years longer than necessary to implement the original transfer. It is
unlikely anyone other than IPC or Aclara accessed these data, however, best practice for information security is to remove
data from transfer points as soon as practical after the transfer is fully executed.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 17
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Key findings
4. The reports are well-designed and easy to understand. The reports include utility branding, convey industry-
standard information, and include contact numbers and methods to find further information.
5. The program periodically reviews and updates the reports. The program staff and vendor review and update tips in
the reports at the beginning of each heating/cooling season. They also adjusted the tips during the pandemic to
eliminate the ones that would involve in-person contractor interaction or require customers to enter public spaces.
Those tips were replaced with more general energy-saving tips.
6. The randomization checks confirmed that the treatment and control groups are sufficiently balanced. Ten out of
the 11 variables we tested showed balance across the treatment and control groups. The one variable that didn’t
(whether the record has a non-missing floor size) is of limited importance.
7. The overall program opt-out rate is lower than the industry average. In year one, the program had a 0.64% opt-out
rate. In year two, it was 0.22%. The industry average is approximately 1%.
8. Savings are estimated using a difference in difference approach that follows industry standard practices. Opt-
outs remain in the savings calculations and homes that have undeliverable or returned mail remain in the energy saving
calculations. Move-outs are removed.
9. The program has a complex set of treatment and control groups. In year one, there were four treatment “waves.”
Each wave was split into a treatment group and a control group. In year two, one new wave was added and the
remaining waves were split so that half of the wave received bi-monthly reports and the other half received quarterly
reports (B/Q split). In year two, the vendor also optimized the treatment groups by removing households predicted to
have low savings from both the treatment and control groups. In year three, the program added another treatment wave
that consisted of customers that were recycled from the original control groups along with new customers that had never
been in any of the previous treatment waves.
10. The vendor’s optimization of the treatment group may underestimate savings for IPC. DNV identified two
anomalies. First, the time period used for the optimization process included some of the treatment period. This would
cause treatment group customers who reduced their consumption below the optimization threshold, due to the Home
Energy Reports, to be dropped from the design. Comparable customers in the control group would not be removed.
Second, the households that stopped receiving reports due to optimization were removed from the savings calculations.
Typical practice is to leave those homes in the calculations because savings persist for some time after reports stop.
11. The vendor did not provide dates when households moved out or stopped receiving reports for other reasons
such as optimization. The lack of dates did not hinder the process evaluation, but a future impact evaluation will likely
require them.
12. Joint savings are not accounted for in the savings calculations. Excluding joint savings from the monthly
calculations is standard practice and should not be connoted as a negative. Idaho Power should be aware that impact
evaluations typically do identify savings from treatment households that are claimed by other programs and remove
them from the savings attributed to the HER program to avoid double counting of those savings.
13. DNV identified minor non-compliances with industry best practices. There were some minor errors in the annual
report provided by the vendor. Data was also left on an FTP site for longer than necessary.
14. The most common reason cited for opting out was that information in the reports was inaccurate. This is a
common response to home energy reports.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 28, 2021 Page 18
5.2 Recommendations
1. DNV recommends that the vendor update its data tracking to reflect additional treatments and conduct tests
that include the original and additional treatments. Best practice when making changes such as the B/Q split or the
optimization step is to keep all original customers in the data set and denote the changes as an additional treatment.
Savings for baseline treatment and the updated treatment should be estimated each against the entire original data set.
These different savings estimates can then also be tested for statistically significant differences to assess whether the
change affected the outcomes. It is even more important to follow his practice when there are activities such as the
optimization that the vendor described.
2. Before an impact evaluation, the vendor should append dates that households went inactive and/or moved out.
If these dates are not available in the vendor’s databases, they can be determined based on Idaho Power billing data.
The inactive dates can be set to the date when the customer stopped receiving service from Idaho Power.
3. Ask the vendor to remove old data from its FTP folders and implement a process to remove data from such
locations as soon as possible after the data transfer is complete. Then confirm the deletion. Any data left
accessible through FTP is vulnerable to theft. While the likelihood of any such theft is very low, removing the data
entirely removes the risk altogether. Note, this recommendation also applies to the data IPC has shared with DNV as a
part of the current evaluation.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 19
EXAMPLE HER REPORT
This appendix contains an example home energy report. The top of the first page is cropped to protect personally identifying
information. That section contained Idaho Power branding and the recipient’s name and address.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 20

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 21
PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTRODUCTION Hi, I’m calling from DNV on behalf of Idaho Power. We are conducting an evaluation of their home energy reports program, and we’d like to ask you a few questions about how it runs.

PARTICIPANT SELECTION
BASED ON THE 2019 REPORT, PARTICIPANT SELECTION WORKS LIKE THIS:
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, >12,000 kWh/year
T4: customers with medium year-round energy use, and 9000-12000/yr
T5: customers with low year-round heating use. <9000 kWh/yr
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, aclara acquired additional data for this group that allowed for the addition of T2 to the
HER program in year two.
T2 had its own control group apart from T1. They added in the T2 and C2 group in year 2. All of T2 was on
bi-monthly. No optimization applied to T1 group.

T2 group did not come partially from T1 group. T2 group is also electric winter heat. They were started a
year later because Aclara didn’t have the data on electric source heating until 2nd year. Comparisons to
similar homes are based on property data – they had insufficient property data to provide reliable
benchmark groups. IPC was able to provide property data that included those customers and Aclara was
able to reevaluate the group that they originally excluded and bring them in.

Relatively early on in the eligibility process, the T1 and T2 group were split out – they realized there was a
group of customers that they had sufficient property data for and a group they didn’t.

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.

P1. IS THAT STILL ACCURATE? (IF NO: PROBE FOR DIFFERENCES).
P2. WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR OPTIMIZING THE T3, T4, AND T5 GROUPS IN Y2 BY REMOVING
CUSTOMERS WITH FACTORS CORRELATED WITH LOW SAVINGS?

P3. Did you verify the randomization of cohort participants?
Probes: What characteristics did you look at? How did you do it? What were the results? Can we see
them?

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 22
SAVINGS
S1. How do you calculate the savings you report to Idaho Power Company? (includes calculation
S2. How do you account for opt outs in the calculated savings?
S3. How do you account for people who move away when calculating savings?

S4. How do you account for undeliverable reports when calculating savings?

S5. Are there any other homes you exclude from analysis? Why?

S6. What, if any, covariates are considered when calculating savings?

S7. Originally, there were 4 cohorts, then in the second year, Idaho Power added a fifth
cohort and reassigned some of the control households from the original four cohorts. How
do you take these changes into account when you compute the savings?

S8. (PROBE) How do you weight the (now) 5 different cohorts?
S9. (PROBE) Is there another dimension for quarterly vs. bimonthly reports? Does that
result in 10 groups?

S10. How do you account for potential double counting regarding treatment group uplift in other
rebate programs?

REPORT DESIGN
R1. Each report contains a page with a list of tips. How many tips are included in the report?

R2. Does the number of tips included vary by method used?

R3. Does each bimonthly/quarterly report include the same number of tips?

R4. Are the tips the same for every participant within that method group?

By method used, we mean these two methods described in the 2018-2019 report
1. Send a seasonal report at the beginning of the season with suggested actions/tips based on
behavior last season (winter heating customers in Y1 and Y@)
2. Send a report that combines two reporting windows, with the front page reporting on the
previous quarter or two months, and the back page suggesting tips based on the same
season the previous year (high AC customers)

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 23
R5. [IF CUSTOMIZED BY HOUSE] How do you determine which custom tips each house
gets?
R6. Is there a library of tips to choose from?

R7. Can a participant receive the same tip more in more than one report throughout the
program year?

R8. [IF REPEATS POSSIBLE] Why do you include the same tip more than once?

R9. Can a tip include participating in an Idaho Power Company program?

R10. If the report does contain a program participation tip and the customer
participates, do you receive that information so that you can exclude it from future tips?

R11. What are the groups used for home classification? For benchmarking the factors are home size, known to have AC or not, electric space heating or not, location (county), and home type (sf
vs. manuf home).
R12. The electricity use breakdown chart is broken down into four categories: A/C, Always On,
Appliances & Lighting, and Electric Heating. How did you come up with this breakdown?
A

R13. Next to the electricity use breakdown chart there is a box with information on use during
a specific time period and the approximate cost of that use to the homeowner. How do
you choose what category to highlight in this box?

R14. Does this box determine which tips are chosen?

R15. Has the report design changed throughout the program year?

R16. Was there internal testing of different report content prior to the first report? (PROBE:
Please describe how you tested it.)

COVID-19
C1. Has the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in any changes to the timing of report deliveries?

C2. Has the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in any changes to the content of the HER reports? Verbiage, tips, etc.
C3. How long will any of the changes implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic
continue?
THANK YOU AND TERMINATE END. Those are all the questions I have for you today. Thank you for your time.

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 24
TRADE ALLY INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTRODUCTION Hi, I’m calling from DNV on behalf of Idaho Power. We are conducting an evaluation of their home energy reports program, and we’d like to ask you a few questions about how it runs.
PARTICIPANT SELECTION
BASED ON THE 2019 REPORT, PARTICIPANT SELECTION WORKS LIKE THIS:
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.
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.
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.

P1. IS THAT STILL ACCURATE? (IF NO: PROBE FOR DIFFERENCES).
P2. WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR OPTIMIZING THE T3, T4, AND T5 GROUPS IN Y2 BY REMOVING
CUSTOMERS WITH FACTORS CORRELATED WITH LOW SAVINGS?
P3. Did you verify the randomization of cohort participants, both for the pilot program and the
expansion?
Probes: What characteristics did you look at? How did you do it? What were the results? Can we see
them?

SAVINGS
S1. How do you calculate the savings you report to Idaho Power Company? (includes calculation of monthly and annual estimates and associated standard errors at individual wave level and across multiple waves and the multiple waves weighting scheme)
S2. How do you account for opt outs in the calculated savings?

S3. How do you account for people who move away when calculating savings?

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 25

S4. How do you account for undeliverable reports when calculating savings?

S5. Are there any other homes you exclude from analysis? Why?

S6. What, if any, covariates are considered when calculating savings? S7. Originally, there were 4 cohorts, then in the second year, Idaho Power added a fifth
cohort and reassigned some of the control households from the original four cohorts. How
do you take these changes into account when you compute the savings?

S8. (PROBE) How do you weight the (now) 5 different cohorts?

S9. (PROBE) Is there another dimension for quarterly vs. bimonthly reports? Does that
result in 10 groups?

S10. How do you account for potential double counting regarding treatment group uplift in other
rebate programs?

REPORT DESIGN R1. Each report contains a page with a list of tips. How many tips are included in the report?
R2. Does the number of tips included vary by method used?

R3. Does each bimonthly/quarterly report include the same number of tips?

R4. Are the tips the same for every participant within that method group?

R5. [IF CUSTOMIZED BY HOUSE] How do you determine which custom tips each house
gets?
R6. Is there a library of tips to choose from?

R7. Can a participant receive the same tip more in more than one report throughout the
program year?

R8. [IF REPEATS POSSIBLE] Why do you include the same tip more than once?

R9. Can a tip include participating in an Idaho Power Company program?

R10. If the report does contain a program participation tip and the customer
participates, do you receive that information so that you can exclude it from future tips?

By method used, we mean these two methods described in the 2018-2019 report
1. Send a seasonal report at the beginning of the season with suggested actions/tips based on
behavior last season (winter heating customers in Y1 and Y2)
2. Send a report that combines two reporting windows, with the front page reporting on the
previous quarter or two months, and the back page suggesting tips based on the same
season the previous year (high AC customers)

DNV – www.dnv.com May 25, 2021 Page 26
R11. What are the groups used for home classification?

R12. The electricity use breakdown chart is broken down into four categories: A/C, Always On,
Appliances & Lighting, and Electric Heating. How did you come up with this breakdown?

R13. Next to the electricity use breakdown chart there is a box with information on use during a specific time period and the approximate cost of that use to the homeowner. How do you choose what category to highlight in this box?

R14. Does this box determine which tips are chosen?

R15. Has the report design changed throughout the program year?

R16. Was there internal testing of different report content prior to the first report? (PROBE:
Please describe how you tested it.)

COVID-19
C1. Has the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in any changes to the timing of report deliveries?

C2. Has the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in any changes to the content of the HER reports?
Verbiage, tips, etc.
C3. How long will any of the changes implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic continue?
THANK YOU AND TERMINATE END. Those are all the questions I have for you today. Thank you for your time.

About DNV
DNV is a global quality assurance and risk management company. Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, we enable our customers to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification, technical assurance, software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil & gas, power and renewables industries. We also provide certification, supply chain and data management services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our experts are dedicated to helping customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.

Impact & Process
Evaluation of
Idaho Power Company
PY2020 Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program
ADM Associates, Inc
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916-363-8383
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
208-388-2200

SUBMITTED TO: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
SUBMITTED ON: MARCH 2, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
Impact & Process Evaluation of ............................................................................................................i
Idaho Power Company PY2020 Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.....................................................i
1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................6
1.1 Savings Results .................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 7
2. General Methodology ............................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Glossary of Terminology................................................................................................................................. 18
2.2 Summary of Approach .................................................................................................................................... 19
3. Impact Evaluation Results ......................................................................................................... 39
3.1 Simple Verification Results............................................................................................................................. 40
3.2 Measure-Level Impact Evaluation Results .................................................................................................... 41
4. Process Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................ 66
4.1 Program Design and Operations.................................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Contractor Interview Findings ....................................................................................................................... 70
4.3 Participant Survey Findings ............................................................................................................................ 78
5. Additional Research Objectives Results ...................................................................................... 85
6. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results ......................................................................................... 107
6.1 ASHP Upgrade with PTCS Billing Analysis....................................................................................................107
6.2 ASHP Conversion HZ2/HZ3 Billing Analysis .................................................................................................111
6.3 Smart Thermostat Billing Analysis ...............................................................................................................116
7. Appendix B: Residential Participant Survey............................................................................... 124
8. Appendix C: Participating Contractor Interview Guide............................................................... 142

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure ............................7
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Measure ........................................ 22
Table 2-2: Summary of Survey Data Collection.................................................................................... 36
Table 2-3: Distribution of Measures Installed at Participating Sites and Installed by Survey Respondents
................................................................................................................................................ 37
Table 2-4: Contractor Interview Disposition Summary......................................................................... 37
Table 3-1: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure .......................... 39
Table 3-2: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Verified NEIs & NEBs ................................................. 40
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Survey Response Rate .......................................................................... 40
Table 3-4: Simple Verification Precision by Measure ........................................................................... 41
Table 3-5: Air Source Heat Pump Measure Description ....................................................................... 41
Table 3-6: Air Source Heat Pump Verified Electric Savings ................................................................... 42
Table 3-7: Air Source Heat Pump Verification Survey ISR Results ......................................................... 43
Table 3-8: Expected Air Source Heat Pump Savings by Component ...................................................... 45
Table 3-9: Verified Air Source Heat Pump Savings and Realization Rate by Component ......................... 45
Table 3-10: Air Source Heat Pump Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits ...................................................... 46
Table 3-11: Ductless Heat Pump Measure Description ........................................................................ 46
Table 3-12: Ductless Heat Pump Verified Electric Savings .................................................................... 46
Table 3-13: Ductless Heat Pump Verification Survey ISR Results .......................................................... 47
Table 3-14: Ductless Heat Pump Non-Energy Benefits ......................................................................... 48
Table 3-15: Duct Sealing Measure Description .................................................................................... 49
Table 3-16: Duct Sealing Verified Electric Savings................................................................................ 49
Table 3-17: Duct Sealing Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits .................................................................... 50
Table 3-18: Evaporative Cooler Measures .......................................................................................... 50
Table 3-19: Evaporative Cooler Verified Electric Savings ...................................................................... 50
Table 3-20: Evaporative Cooler Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................ 51
Table 3-21: Electronically Commutated Motors Measures................................................................... 53
Table 3-22: Electronically Commutated Motors Verified Electric Savings .............................................. 53
Table 3-23: Electronically Commutated Motors Verification Survey ISR Results .................................... 54

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
Table 3-24: Heat Pump Water Heater Measures ................................................................................. 55
Table 3-25: Heat Pump Water Heater Verified Electric Savings ............................................................ 55
Table 3-26: Heat Pump Water Heater Verification Survey ISR Results................................................... 56
Table 3-27: Heat Pump Water Heater Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits ................................................. 57
Table 3-28: Open Loop Heat Pump Measure Description..................................................................... 58
Table 3-29: Open Loop Heat Pump Verified Electric Savings ................................................................ 58
Table 3-30: Open Loop Heat Pump Verification Survey ISR Results....................................................... 59
Table 3-31: Open Loop Heat Pump Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits ..................................................... 60
Table 3-32: Smart Thermostat Measure Description ........................................................................... 61
Table 3-33: Smart Thermostat Verified Electric Savings ....................................................................... 61
Table 3-34: Smart Thermostat Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................. 62
Table 3-35: Smart Thermostat Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits ............................................................ 63
Table 3-36: Whole House Fan Measure Description ............................................................................ 64
Table 3-37: Whole House Fan Verified Electric Savings ........................................................................ 64
Table 3-38: Whole House Fan Verification Survey ISR Results .............................................................. 65
Table 4-1: List of Program Measures, Expected Savings, Incentive Dollars, and Acquisition Cost ............ 67
Table 4-2: Participation by Region...................................................................................................... 67
Table 4-3: Participating Contractor Engagement ................................................................................. 70
Table 4-4: Respondent Summary ....................................................................................................... 71
Table 4-5: Contractor Motivations to be Approved Contractor ............................................................ 72
Table 4-6: Barriers to Program Participation and Suggestions for Improvement.................................... 73
Table 4-7: Respondent Recall of Program and Non-Program Ducted Heat Pump Installations................ 76
Table 4-9: Program Benefits .............................................................................................................. 79
Table 4-10: Suggestions for Improvement .......................................................................................... 80
Table 5-1: PTCS Verification Summary................................................................................................ 88
Table 5-2: Respondent Recall of Non-Program Ducted Heat Pump Installation Procedures ................... 89
Table 5-3: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades .......................... 91
Table 5-4: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades ............................................................ 92
Table 5-5: Respondent Recall of Program and Non-Program Ducted Heat Pump Equipment ................. 95
Table 5-6: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions ...................... 97

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 v
Table 5-7: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions ........................................................ 98
Table 5-8: Estimated Annual Hours of Operation, Whole House Fans ................................................. 101
Table 5-9: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Smart Thermostats............................................ 104
Table 5-10: Estimated Savings, Smart Thermostats, by Install Type .................................................... 105
Table 6-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, ASHP Upgrades with PTCS ................................. 107
Table 6-2: Cohort Restrictions, ASHP Upgrades with PTCS ................................................................. 108
Table 6-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS ............................. 110
Table 6-4: TMY Weather, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS ................................................ 110
Table 6-5: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS .......................................... 110
Table 6-6: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions .................... 111
Table 6-7: Cohort Restrictions, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ1 .......................................... 112
Table 6-8: Cohort Restrictions, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ2 .......................................... 112
Table 6-9: Cohort Restrictions, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ2/HZ3 .................................. 112
Table 6-10: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Conversions, HZ1................................ 114
Table 6-11: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Conversions, HZ2................................ 114
Table 6-12: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Conversions, HZ2/HZ3 ........................ 115
Table 6-13: TMY Weather, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions .......................................................... 115
Table 6-14: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions .................................................... 116
Table 6-15: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Smart Thermostats .......................................... 116
Table 6-16: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats, Aggregated ...................................................... 117
Table 6-17: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats, Self-Installed .................................................... 117
Table 6-18: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats, Contractor-Installed .......................................... 117
Table 6-19: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostats, Aggregate.............................................. 121
Table 6-20: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostats, Self-Installed ......................................... 121
Table 6-21: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostats, Contractor-Installed ............................... 122
Table 6-22: TMY Weather, Smart Thermostats, by Install Type .......................................................... 122
Table 6-23: Estimated Savings, Smart Thermostats, by Install Type .................................................... 123

Work Plan 6
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the 2020 program year (PY2020) Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Impact and Process Evaluation for Idaho Power Company (IPC) in the Idaho and Oregon service
territory. The evaluation was administered by ADM Associates, Inc. (herein referred to as the
“Evaluators”).
The Evaluators found the impact and process evaluation results for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program to align with similar electric HVAC programs offered in the Pacific Northwest region. The
impact evaluation resulted in 96% realization rate, which meets the typical realization for HVAC
programs, between 90% and 110%. The Evaluators provide recommendations for improving a small
number of program documentation, savings algorithm applications, and incentive changes to improve
opportunities to estimate accurate savings through the program.
In addition, the Evaluators found the vast majority of responding customers were satisfied or very
satisfied with the program (88.8%) and more than half recommended the program to people they
know (61.9%). The Evaluators conclude that the program is running smoothly and delivers sufficient
energy efficiency options to Idaho Power customers. The Evaluators provide recommendations for
improving opportunities to increase reach and lower customer and contractor barriers for
participation.
1.1 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact and process evaluation for IPC’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program during PY2020. The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program savings amounted to 1,779,679 kWh
with a 96.77% realization rate. The Evaluators summarize the program verified savings in Table 1-1.

Evaluation Report 7
Table 1-1: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure
Measure Number of
Rebates
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 14 10,432 6,780 65.00%
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF 88 658,487 590,769 89.72%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF 51 27,359 64,413 235.44%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat
Pump: 8.5 HSPF 8 56,381 53,558 94.99%
Ductless Heat Pump 244 556,279 553,529 99.51%
Duct Sealing 1 848 848 100.03%
Evaporative Cooler 9 13,239 5,878 44.40%
Electronically Commutated Motor 51 145,921 165,074 113.13%
Heat Pump Water Heater 26 40,768 32,456 79.61%
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 3 23,444 23,442 99.99%
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water
Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 1 7,054 7,054 100.00%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water
Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 2 14,108 15,622 110.73%
Smart Thermostat - Self Installed 240 127,114 106,073 83.45%
Smart Thermostat - Contractor Installed 152 100,152 92,382 92.24%
Whole House Fan 129 57,482 61,800 107.51%
Total 1,019 1,839,068 1,779,679 96.77%
The Evaluators conducted the following evaluation tasks for the PY2020 Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program impact and process evaluation:
◼ Impact Evaluation
o Database review
o Survey verification
o Deemed savings review and application
o Billing analysis for additional research objectives
◼ Process Evaluation
o Staff interviews
o Contractor interviews
o Participant surveys
In the following sections, the Evaluators summarize the findings and recommendations resulting from
our evaluation activities.
1.2 Conclusions & Recommendations
The following section details the Evaluators’ impact and process evaluation conclusions and
recommendations for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.

Evaluation Report 8
1.2.1.1 Impact Evaluation
The Evaluators provide the following impact evaluation conclusions and recommendations regarding
Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program:
First, the Evaluators present the conclusions and recommendations that affect all measures in the
program:
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators verified 1,779,679 kWh savings at 96.77% realization rate for the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The Evaluators verified savings using the RTF-approved
workbooks, the New Mexico TRM, IDL workpapers, and for the air source heat pump upgrades,
a billing analysis completed for projects rebated through the program. The Evaluators present
these verified savings, which achieve ±7.1% precision at the 90% confidence interval.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators verified air source heat pump upgrade projects using billing analysis
results comparing participating household energy consumption to nonparticipating household
energy consumption.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found inconsistencies in program incentive application for several of
the measures reviewed (air source heat pump upgrades, air source heat pump conversions,
ductless heat pumps).
▪ Recommendation #1: The Evaluators recommend IPC require customers fill out
an incentive application consistent for all projects rebated during the program
year.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found most measure-level rebate application forms for the Heating
& Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather the required information to
claim savings for the measure through the Regional Technical Forum (“RTF”) measure
specifications. Although many of the program application documents submitted by customers
were incomplete, IPC staff retroactively fill in information after following up with the customer.
However, some forms remained incomplete after IPC had reviewed the applications. For the
majority of cases, IPC’s tracking database contained values for these accounts. However, this
information may not be updated once the customer fulfills the application. The information
most commonly omitted from the customer consist of the housing type (single-family vs.
manufactured home), home vintage, home square footage, existing cooling type, and
checkboxes indicating equipment had been installed to manufacturer requirements.
▪ Recommendation #2: The Evaluators recommend IPC review each application
to ensure the measure-level requirements are portrayed in rebate
documentation prior to fulfilling incentives for the project.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found instances in which equipment did not meet or exceed the RTF-
specified efficiency requirements or measure specifications (air source heat pump upgrades and
smart thermostats).
▪ Recommendation #3: The Evaluators recommend IPC review each application
to ensure the measure-level requirements are met prior to fulfilling incentives
for the project.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators note that the IPC tracking database does not consistently reflect the
same values found in the mail-in rebate applications documents. For example, four heat pump
water heater projects in which incorrect equipment location was documented in the database,
two open loop heat pump projects in which central A/C was not documented. Inconsistencies

Evaluation Report 9
between documentation and database values are commonly portrayed for equipment efficiency
values, housing type, and home square footage.
▪ Recommendation #4: The Evaluators recommend IPC work to improve methods
for collecting web and mail-in rebate application information to reconcile the
database, especially in cases where inputs are requirements for savings
calculations.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that savings estimates provided by IPC had not been rounded
to the nearest kWh for RTF-approved measures. The RTF presents measure-level unit energy
savings rounded to the nearest full kWh.
▪ Recommendation #5: The Evaluators recommend IPC update the database to
round to the nearest full kWh.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that the majority of ducted air source heat pump projects
(70%) did not meet all aspects of Performance Tested Comfort Systems (“PTCS”) standards.
Therefore, Commissioning, Controls, & Sizing savings claimed for each project was removed for
projects in which the Evaluator was unable to verify the project met or exceeded all aspects
PTCS certification. In most cases, the required information was present on rebate application
materials, however, the values presented in the documents had not met PTCS standards. The
RTF states that the controls and sizing components of the PTCS requirements are the most
impactful components to PTCS savings. Because the majority of IPC ducted heat pumps meet
individual PTCS requirements towards controls and sizing, but lack other components of PTCS
requirements, the Evaluators believe that these projects still display significant potential for
savings towards additional control and sizing activities implemented by the program.
▪ Recommendation #6: The Evaluators recommend providing additional training
to contractors rebating air source heat pumps through the program and
reviewing documentation more thoroughly to confirm PTCS standards have
been met. This will ensure PTCS savings from the RTF may be assigned to each
project once the RTF workbook is reinstated.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators reviewed the New Mexico Technical Resource Manual (“TRM”) and
deemed it as an appropriate deemed savings source for the evaporative coolers rebated
through the program, due to similar cooling degree days between the Boise, ID region and the
Santa Fe, NM region. However, the New Mexico TRM requires a NTG ratio be applied to the
evaporative cooler measure to indicate the proportion of projects in which evaporative coolers
replace refrigerated air. The Evaluators relied on a literature review to estimate NTG for the
region, sourced from the Public Company of New Mexico 2015 impact evaluation in which a
comprehensive study was completed to estimate NTG for evaporative coolers.
▪ Recommendation #7: The Evaluators recommend IPC apply this 44.4% NTG
ratio for claimed savings of future projects rebated through the program. When
participation permits, the Evaluators recommend estimating the NTG ratio for
evaporative cooler projects rebated in the Idaho Power service territory.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators reviewed the literature review workpaper and confirmed that
savings values are applicable to the ECM projects completed in the Idaho Power service
territory. Therefore, the Evaluators utilized the savings calculations derived from the Integrated
Design Lab (“IDL”) literature review workpaper for the electronically commutated motors
projects completed in the Idaho Power service territory.

Evaluation Report 10
▪ Recommendation #8: The Evaluators recommend continuing to utilize the IDL
workpaper to claim savings for the electronically commutated motors measure.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators reviewed and applied the savings values derived from the University
of Idaho Integrated Design Lab workpaper on whole house fans (WHF) along with verified
tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.
▪ Recommendation #9: The Evaluators recommend utilizing the modeling results
presented in the paper. However, The Evaluators recommend applying the
savings values presented in the paper by calculating kWh impacts per square
foot for four scenarios utilizing household number of stories and observed
whole house fan cubic feet per minute (“CFM”) rate per square foot. The
Evaluators recommend claiming savings for future whole house fans using the
deemed savings approach presented in the WHF section. The Evaluators
adjusted the application of the savings represented in the IDL workpaper. Idaho
Power used the constant 445.6 kWh savings per WHF. The calculation behind
this value is unclear; however, the Evaluators utilized the IDL modeling results
for each the one-story and two-story constructions, for each the 1 CFM/SQFT
and 2 CFM/SQFT model results.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that heat pump water heater savings calculated by IPC lacked
some interactive components.
▪ Recommendation #10: The Evaluators recommend IPC ensure the measure-
level savings applied to projects matches the total measure savings defined in
the RTF workbook measure table to ensure expected savings accounts for the
savings due to water heating, cooling interactions, and heating interactions.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that five smart thermostat models across 25 smart thermostat
rebates (of the 392 smart thermostat rebates received throughout the program year) lacked
eligibility for verified RTF savings. These five models lacked required occupancy sensing and/or
geofencing capabilities, as required by the RTF workbook on Connected Thermostats.
▪ Recommendation #11: The Evaluators recommend IPC consider providing a list
of qualified products on program website or list of qualification criteria for
smart thermostats to receive incentives through the program. In addition, the
Evaluators recommend IPC verify that the rebated smart thermostat is replacing
a non-qualified thermostat, as required by the RTF measure specifications.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators removed smart thermostat savings for three projects in which
commissioning, controls, and sizing savings were claimed through the program, as required by
the RTF measure specifications.
▪ Recommendation #12: The Evaluators recommend IPC update database to
refrain from claiming smart thermostat savings for households which also claim
PTCS standards savings.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found some inputs required in savings calculations for the whole
house fans are not present or differ from values presented in the database, such as equipment
CFM rate, home square footage, and the number of stories of the home.
▪ Recommendation #13: The Evaluators recommend verifying home existing
cooling type has central air conditioning, home square footage, whether the
home is one-story or two-story, WHF manufacturer, model number, and serial
number are consistent, verify CFM for each WHF. In addition, the Evaluators

Evaluation Report 11
recommend enforcing required documents for all rebates, as some rebates
displayed blank or missing required information.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that all survey respondents indicated that the installed
measure is still installed and functional. The survey effort met a precision of 7.24% with 129
responses.
1.2.1.2 Process Evaluation
The Evaluators provide the following process evaluation conclusions and recommendations regarding
Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program:
◼ Conclusion: The vast majority of responding customers were satisfied or very satisfied with the
program (88.8%) and more than half recommended the program to people they know (61.9%).
Satisfaction rates are similar for other HVAC programs in the area.
◼ Conclusion: The majority of customers participated in the program in order to lower their energy
usage and save money on their utility bill (75.4%). About half of respondents noted a decrease in
their electricity bill since participating in the program (49.2%).
◼ Conclusion: Direct contact with Idaho Power staff is valued by contractors and has historically
been a reason why the program has succeeded. Most contractors reported positive experiences
with Idaho Power staff. Many noted their participation in the program was a direct result of
contact with Idaho Power staff, and several contractors specified they would like more contact
with staff.
◼ Recommendation #14: To the extent possible, the Evaluators recommend Idaho Power
staff reach out to existing contractors using trainings, in-person visits, webinars, and
other methods to maintain and nurture personal relationships between the program
and contractors. Offering regular trainings, webinars, or other opportunities to bring
staff and contractors together yields positive connections between the program and
contractors which ultimately yields projects.
◼ Conclusion: Contractors experience with the program and with installing ducted heat pumps
varies across the Idaho Power service territory which leads to several barriers to completing
more program projects. According to contractor responses, barriers to completing more ducted
heat pump projects in the region are:
▪ Contractor’s unawareness of the ducted heat pump program offerings.
▪ The incentive ($250) for replacing existing ducted heat pumps with new more
efficient units is insufficient so contractors do not offer it, or it is not enough to
prompt a customer to act.
▪ Less efficient (<8.5 HSPF) options are still seen as widely available, especially
outside the Capital and Canyon areas, and those units are inexpensive enough
that they still appeal to many contractors and customers.
▪ Some contractors, especially in the Capital region have limited experience
installing ducted heat pumps. This is likely a result of the area having several
natural gas options for customers.
◼ Recommendation #15: Consider increasing the existing incentive amounts as well as
expand measures offered, if cost-effectiveness allows. Customers and participating

Evaluation Report 12
contractors alike suggested broadening the measures offered and/or increasing
incentive amounts. Not only was equipment cost the biggest barrier to customer
participation according to interviewed contractors, but many customers surveyed
suggested offering larger and more wide-reaching discounts. Proposed increase includes
the $250 contractor incentive for replacing a ducted heat pump, as well as the customer
incentive for all eligible measures.
◼ Recommendation #16: Work with distributors and suppliers to better understand the
availability of ducted heat pump units with an HSPF ≥8.5 and <8.5. Consider ways to
incent distributors to push or offer higher efficient units, especially in areas outside of
the Capital region.
◼ Conclusion: Many of the program top performing contractors did not install ducted heat pumps
outside of the program. Many lesser participating contractors (“dabblers”) and non-participating
contractors display lack of knowledge about these standards or confirm that they do not
implement them for installations conducted outside of the program.
▪ Additional findings from this research effort found that many contractors that do
not often participate in the program lack understanding of the program
requirements, and therefore avoid the risk of trying to participate in the program.
The reasons for installing non-program qualified heat pumps were equipment
barriers, financial barriers, and a lack of understanding regarding program and
install requirements.
◼ Recommendation #17: The Evaluators recommend that IPC provide additional efforts to
provide educational training to assist in building contractor awareness of the program
and the program requirements. Work with contractors to increase training and
educational opportunities about PTCS standards, and program requirements, address all
concerns or questions they may have about the program and what
equipment/environment is and is not eligible.
◼ Conclusion: The program is using a broad and comprehensive marketing approach that consists
of direct mailings, bill inserts, and friend/family referral, as well as social media. Many of the
program measures are predominantly measures that would be driven by contractors. Staff
noted that they are not providing contractors co-branded collateral; however, contractors are
listed on the website and they are encouraged to mention their role with the program. That
said, program staff noted that it is a challenge to reach the customers at the right time and that
there are many competing demands for their attention. This sentiment was echoed in customer
survey responses, with twenty respondents suggesting increased in advertisement and outreach
campaigns.
◼ Recommendation #18: Invest in more marketing and outreach of the program.
Customers recommended more print ads, online marketing, and bill inserts to let
customers know about the program. Strategies that may help the program reach
customers with the program message at the right time include:
▪ Use of search-based advertisement. Customers searching for information on
smart thermostats, evaporative coolers, and whole house fans may be effectively
reach through search ads.

Evaluation Report 13
▪ Promote smart thermostat installations during heat pump replacements.
Approximately half of the air source heat pumps installed in 2020 included a
smart thermostat. While that is a sizable share, there may be additional
opportunities to promote smart thermostats during these installations.
◼ Recommendation #19: To the extent possible, Idaho Power should engage existing
account representatives to help with on the ground communication and marketing of
the program. In the past, staff had on the ground account representatives who helped
with contractor visits and check-ins; this assistance was invaluable to promoting the
program across the service area.
◼ Conclusion: Thermostats installed on heat pumps are largely contractor installed. Seventy-four
percent of respondents with thermostats installed on heat pumps said a contractor installed the
thermostat. Those customers who did self-install them either did not change the heat pump
settings or did not know what they were, suggesting that the manufacture default settings are
being used.
1.2.1.3 Additional Research Objectives
The Evaluators provide the following additional research conclusions and recommendations regarding a
subset of measures provided in Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program:
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the heat pumps and PTCS
standards research efforts (Section 5.1.1.1):
◼ Conclusion: The majority of ducted heat pump projects (70%) completed through the program
cannot be confirmed to meet PTCS standards either due to lack of required information in
documentation, or due to provided documentation displaying values that do not meet PTCS
standards. Nineteen of the 55 sampled projects that claimed PTCS savings were confirmed to
have met PTCS requirements as found through document verification. For projects in which the
Evaluators are unable to confirm PTCS standards are met, RTF Commissioning, Controls, and
Sizing savings were removed from the project.
◼ Recommendation #20: Although the Commissioning, Controls, and Standards RTF
Workbook is deactivated, the Evaluators recommend IPC continue to require additional
documents to properly verify each of the five components for PTCS certification to ensure
any future RTF workbook remains applicable:
▪ Collect each air source heat pump heating capacity at 17F and 47F and ensure
heat pump sizing worksheets document heating load design temperature of
equipment.
▪ Collect equipment air flow values (CFM/BTUh) to confirm values are within
0.027 and 0.042.
▪ Collect external static pressure value at 0.8 inches of water (200 Pa).
▪ Require customers confirm that the equipment was installed to manufacturer’s
recommendations.
▪ Require customers confirm that auxiliary heat does not engage when the
outdoor air temperature is above 35F

Evaluation Report 14
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators utilized the billing analysis results for the air source heat pump
upgrades completed in PY2020 projects. The RTF deactivated the Commissioning, Controls, &
Sizing workbook in January 2020. However, the RTF intends to consider other versions of this
measure in the future.
◼ Recommendation #21: Due to inability to claim savings from additional commissioning,
controls, and sizing practices for ducted heat pump measures through the RTF while the
measure is deactivated, the Evaluators recommend to continue analyzing impacts
through measurement or observed billing analysis in the future. Once the RTF approves
a new measure for PTCS standards, the Evaluators recommend using the UES values
presented in the new workbook.
◼ Conclusion: Contractor respondents varied greatly in their experience installing ducted heat
pumps and installation procedures conducted for non-program installations. Eleven respondents
indicated they sometimes install ducted heat pumps that do not receive the Heating and Cooling
Efficiency Program incentive. Two contractors indicated they use Manual J calculations for all
non-program installs while three contractors noted following Manual J procedures for new
construction ducted heat pumps, but not for retrofits, as the program requirements are too
stringent.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that the top performers in the program typically install
equipment outside the program to meet the PTCS/Manual J requirements. However, many
dabblers and non-participating contractors display lack of knowledge about these standards or
confirm that they do not implement them for installations conducted outside of the program.
The Evaluators reference the recommendation noted in Recommendation #17.
◼ Conclusion: The contractor interviews concluded that the reasons for installing non-program
qualified heat pumps were equipment barriers, financial barriers, and a lack of understanding
regarding program and install requirements. Many contractors lack understanding of the
program requirements, and therefore avoid the risk of trying to participate in the program. The
Evaluators reference the recommendation noted in Recommendation #15.
◼ Conclusion: These results indicate that savings for air source heat pump upgrade measure with
PTCS standards in the program achieve 1,263 kWh savings per year, about 30% higher than the
savings values presented in the RTF for air source heat pump upgrades with commissioning,
controls, and sizing standards. This value includes projects for which efficient equipment
displays HSPF of 8.5 or greater.
◼ Recommendation #22: Because the Commissioning, Controls, & Sizing workbook from
the RTF will be deactivated and unable to be used towards PY2021 projects for claimed
savings, and because the projects seem to benefit from additional savings due to these
additional sizing activities, the Evaluators recommend using the results of this billing
analysis to quantify savings for ducted heat pump upgrades projects rebated through
the program. This analysis would estimate average impacts for the air source heat pump
upgrades completed and verified by IPC’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.

Evaluation Report 15
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the ducted heat pumps 8.2 vs 8.5
HSPF standards research efforts as well as the billing analysis for the ducted heat pump conversions in
Heating Zones 2 and 3 (Section 5.1.1.2):
◼ Conclusion: According to contractor responses, barriers to completing more ducted heat pump
projects in the region are: low incentive levels and availability of less efficient options. The
Evaluators reference the recommendation noted in Recommendation #15 and Recommendation
#16.
▪ The incentive ($250) for replacing existing ducted heat pumps with new more
efficient units is insufficient so contractors do not offer it or it is not enough to
prompt a customer to act.
▪ Less efficient (<8.5 HSPF) options are still seen as widely available, especially
outside the Capital and Canyon areas, and those units are inexpensive enough
that they still appeal to many contractors and customers.
◼ Conclusion: Annual energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 1, 2, and
2/3 totals 1,513 kWh per year 2,609 kWh per year, and 2,026 kWh per year, respectively. These
results indicate that savings for air source heat pump conversion measures in Heating Zone 2 are,
on average, 58% higher than energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone
1 and savings for the measure in Heating Zone 2/3 is, on average, 34% higher than in Heating Zone
1. However, the results of the billing analysis provide savings values significantly lower than the
RTF-provided savings for this measure, regardless of Heating Zone.
◼ Conclusion: The RTF workbook which calculates ducted heat pump conversion savings is unable
to be modified. In addition, research indicates that 8.2 HSPF equipment are still widely available
and remain a valid option for customers outside of the program.
Recommendation #23: The Evaluators recommend that IPC continue to use the RTF-
approved UES values for ducted heat pump conversions to evaluate savings for the
projects, which already define the federal minimum of 8.2 HSPF as the baseline. For the
PTCS standards portion of the projects, the Evaluators recommend requiring sufficient
documentation to confirm PTCS certification. In addition, due to RTF deactivation of the
Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing workbook, and due to the results of the billing
analysis, the Evaluators recommend IPC does not claim additional sizing savings for these
projects.
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the ECMs, whole house fans, and
evaporative coolers measures research (Section 5.1.1.3):
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators reviewed the Integrated Design Lab literature review workpaper and
confirmed that savings values are applicable to the ECM projects completed in the Idaho Power
service territory. The Evaluators reference the recommendation noted in Recommendation #8.
◼ Conclusion: Participants indicated that they use their whole house fan most June-September;
about half (47.3%) of participants use their fan for four or more hours per day during summer
months. The Evaluators used these results to estimate annual hours of operation for whole house
fans in the program of between 244 and 731 hours, which is consistent with the IDL workpaper

Evaluation Report 16
estimate of 343 hours. The Evaluators reference the recommendation noted in Recommendation
#9.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that of the two respondents (50%) of customers who had
rebated an evaporative cooler had indicated that the evaporative cooler was replacing
refrigerated air (an A/C unit). The Evaluators reference the recommendation noted in
Recommendation #7.
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the smart thermostat measure
research efforts (Section 5.1.1.4):
◼ Conclusion: The customers who had self-installed the smart thermostat with a heat pump indicate
little knowledge about the proper installation practices and had not adjusted auxiliary heat
settings or compressor lockout settings with respect to the settings from their heat pump. Instead,
the majority of self-install customers with heat pump systems had installed the smart thermostat
to the default settings provided by the manufacturer. In contrast, the contractor-installed smart
thermostats are installed to meet the proper auxiliary and compressor lockout settings with
respect to the household’s heat pump equipment settings. This research indicates that the self-
installed smart thermostats may not be meeting the full potential of energy savings due to the
oversight of these additional energy-saving settings.
◼ Recommendation #24: The Evaluators recommend that IPC provide instructional
education or requirements for self-installed smart thermostats rebated through the
program. The Evaluators recommend IPC explore options for changing incentive levels for
self-installed vs. contractor-installed smart thermostats to further incentivize customers
to have their equipment properly installed to their heating equipment.
◼ Conclusion: Customers with smart thermostats find value in keeping their homes at a comfortable
temperature. Additionally, customers use energy-saving features available to them to save energy
when they are not home.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that the contractor-installed smart thermostats saved more
energy than the self-installed smart thermostats. The Evaluators were unable to estimate savings
for the self-installed smart thermostats, however, the contractor-installed smart thermostats
saved 470 kWh per year while the aggregate of contractor-installed and self-installed smart
thermostats saved 229 kWh per year.
◼ Recommendation #25: The Evaluators recommend continuing to use the RTF-approved
Connected Thermostat workbook to evaluate savings for this measure. The Evaluators
also recommend revisiting billing analysis when additional self-installed thermostat
projects are completed and available to use in further analyses.

Evaluation Report 17
2. General Methodology
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on each of the measures summarized in Table 1-1. Our
general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, impact evaluation, and process evaluation. Our activities estimate and verify annual
energy savings and identify whether the program is meeting its goals. This is aimed to provide guidance
for continuous program improvement. The Evaluators summarize the research objectives for the impact
and process evaluation for this program here:
1. Determine and verify the energy impacts (kWh) as well as ex-post realization rates attributable
to the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program for the 2020 program year;
2. Develop estimates of program non-electric impacts (NEIs) and non-energy benefits (NEBs);
3. Evaluate program design1, implementation2, and administration3; and
4. Report findings and observations from the evaluation and make recommendations to assist IPC
in enhancing the effectiveness of programs and more accurately and transparently reporting
program savings in future program cycles.
Furthermore, our team reviewed existing data on program performance and design and collected
additional data on program performance and administration. We synthesized these data to identify gaps
in program design and barriers to program implementation. This synthesis allows development of
recommendations for program improvement that are grounded in the existing design and based on real-
world feedback.
The Evaluators used the following approaches to accomplish the impact-related research goals listed
above and calculate energy impacts defined by the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocols (IPMVP)4 and the Uniform Methods Project (UMP)5:
◼ Simple verification (web-based surveys supplemented with phone surveys)
◼ Document verification (review project documentation)
◼ Deemed savings (RTF UES, New Mexico TRM values, University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
(IDL) workpapers)
◼ Billing analysis for additional research objectives
The Evaluators used the following approaches to accomplish the process-related research goals and
complete the research objectives identified by IPC for the program:
◼ Staff interviews
◼ Contractor interviews
◼ Participant surveys

1 Including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices
2 Including quality control, operational practice, and outreach
3 Including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and reporting
4 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31505.pdf
5 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf

Evaluation Report 18
The M&V methodologies are determined by previous Idaho Power evaluation methodologies as well as
the relative contribution of a given program to the overall energy efficiency impacts. Besides drawing on
IPMVP, the Evaluators also reviewed relevant information on infrastructure, framework, and guidelines
set out for EM&V work in several guidebook documents that have been published over the past several
years. These include the following:
◼ Northwest Power & Conservation Council Regional Technical Forum (RTF)6
◼ New Mexico Technical Resource Manual (TRM)7
◼ National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), United States Department of Energy (DOE) The
Uniform Methods Project (UMP): Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific
Measures, April 20138
◼ International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) maintained by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE )9
The Evaluators kept data collection instruments, calculation spreadsheets, programming code, and
survey data available for Idaho Power records.
As part of the impact evaluation, the Evaluators also conducted additional billing analyses for measures
in which additional research objectives were defined. These billing analyses comply with the IPMVP
Option C procedures.
2.1 Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators have provided a glossary of
terms to follow:
◼ Deemed Savings – An estimate of an energy savings outcome for a single unit of an installed
energy efficiency measure. This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources and analytical
methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) are applicable to the
situation being evaluated.
◼ Expected Savings – Calculated savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
◼ Verified Savings – Savings estimates after the unit-level savings values have been updated and
energy impact evaluation has been completed, integrating results from billing analyses and
appropriate RTF UES and New Mexico TRM values.
◼ Gross Savings – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related
actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they participated.
◼ Free Rider – A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or
practice in absence of the program.
◼ Net-To-Gross – A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that
is applied to gross program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts.

6 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
77 https://www.nm-prc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/New-Mexico-TRM-2021-Final-03-09-2021.pdf
8 Notably, The Uniform Methods Project (UMP) includes the following chapters authored by ADM. Chapter 9 (Metering Cross-
Cutting Protocols) was authored by Dan Mort and Chapter 15 (Commercial New Construction Protocol) was Authored by Steven
Keates.
9 Core Concepts: International Measurement and Verification Protocol. EVO 100000 – 1:2016, October 2016.

Evaluation Report 19
◼ Net Savings – The change in energy consumption directly resulting from program-related actions
taken by participants in an efficiency program, with adjustments to remove savings due to free
ridership.
◼ Non-Energy Benefits – Quantifiable impacts produced by program measures outside of energy
savings (comfort, health and safety, reduced alternative fuel, etc.).
◼ Non-Energy Impacts – Quantifiable impacts in energy efficiency beyond the energy savings gained
from installing energy efficient measures (reduced cost for operation and maintenance of
equipment, reduced environmental and safety costs, etc.).
2.2 Summary of Approach
This section presents our approach to accomplishing the impact and process evaluation of Idaho
Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. This chapter is organized by evaluation objective. Section
2.2.3 and Section 3 describe the Evaluators’ measure-specific impact evaluation methods and results in
further detail and Section 2.2.4 and Section 4describe the Evaluator’s process evaluation methods and
results.
The Evaluators outline the approach for verifying, measuring, and reporting the residential portfolio
impacts as well as summarizing potential program and portfolio improvements. The primary objective of
the impact evaluation is to determine ex-post verified net energy savings. On-site verification and
equipment monitoring was not conducted during this impact evaluation.
Our general approach for this evaluation considers the cyclical feedback loop among program design,
implementation, and impact evaluation. Our activities during the evaluation estimate and verify annual
energy savings and identify whether the program is meeting its goals. These activities are aimed to
provide guidance for continuous program improvement and increased cost effectiveness for future
program years.
The Evaluators employed the following approach to complete impact evaluation activities for the
program. The Evaluators define one major approach to determining net savings for Idaho Power’s
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program:
◼ A Deemed Savings approach involves using stipulated savings for energy conservation measures
for which savings values are well-known and documented. These prescriptive savings may also
include an adjustment for certain measures, such as lighting measures in which site operating
hours may differ from RTF values.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
◼ Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90% confidence level;
◼ Where appropriate, apply the RTF or New Mexico TRM to verify measure impacts;
◼ Where appropriate, apply IDL workpaper results to verify measure impacts; and
◼ Where additional research objectives are defined, conduct billing analysis with a suitable
comparison group to estimate measure savings.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based on the RTF UES, New Mexico TRM, or
IDL workpapers in combination with the results from document review. The Evaluators also applied in-

Evaluation Report 20
service rates (ISRs) from verification surveys for measures which met or exceeded 90/10 precision
requirements from survey responses.

The Evaluators also completed billing analyses to support additional research objectives for a subset of
measures in which additional research objectives were defined. Further methodology for the additional
research objectives for these measures are provided in Section 2.2.5.
2.2.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the databases to ensure that each program
tracking database conforms to industry standards and adequately tracks key data required for
evaluation.
Measure-level net savings were evaluated primarily by reviewing measure algorithms and values in the
tracking system to assure that they are appropriately applied using the Regional Technical Forum Unit
Energy Savings (UES). The Evaluators then aggregated and cross-check program and measure totals.
The Evaluators reviewed program application documents for a sample of incented measures to verify
the tracking data accurately represents the program documents. The Evaluators ensured the home
installed measures that meet or exceed program efficiency standards.
2.2.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating households for detailed review of the installed measure
documentation and development of verified savings. The Evaluators verified tracking data by reviewing
invoices and surveying a sample of participant customer households. The Evaluators also conducted a
verification survey for program participants.
The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate sample size requirements for each program and
fuel type. Required sample sizes were estimated as follows:
Equation 2-1: Sample Size for Infinite Sample Size
𝑛= (𝑍× 𝐶𝑉
𝑑)
2

Equation 2-2: Sample Size for Finite Population Size
𝑛0 = 𝑛
1 +(𝑛
𝑁)
Where,
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
Document
Review
Survey
Verification
Evaluated
Savings

Evaluation Report 21
◼ 𝑛 = Sample size
◼ 𝑍 = Z-value for a two-tailed distribution at the assigned confidence level.
◼ 𝐶𝑉 = Coefficient of variation
◼ 𝑑 = Precision level
◼ 𝑁 = Population
For a sample that provides 90/10 precision, Z = 1.645 (the critical value for 90% confidence) and d = 0.10
(or 10% precision). The remaining parameter is CV, or the expected coefficient of variation of measures
for which the claimed savings may be accepted. A CV of .5 was assumed for the program due to the
homogeneity of participation10, which yields a sample size of 68 for an infinite population. Sample sizes
were adjusted for smaller populations via the method detailed in Equation 2-2.
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s methodology for conducting document-based
verification and survey-based verification.
2.2.2.1 Document-Based Verification
The Evaluators requested rebate documentation for a subset of participating customers. These
documents included invoices, rebate applications and worksheets, and AHRI certifications for each
measure in the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.
This sample of documents was used to cross-verify tracking data inputs. In cases where the Evaluators
found any deviations between the tracking data and application values, the Evaluators reported and
summarized those differences in the measure-level results in Section 3.2 for each measure type.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieves a sampling precision of ±10% at 90% statistical
confidence – or “90/10 precision” – to estimate the percentage of projects for which the claimed savings
are verified or require some adjustment.
The Evaluators developed the following samples for the program’s document review using Equation 2-1
and Equation 2-2. The Evaluators ensured representation for each measure.

10 Assumption based off California Evaluation Framework:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy/Energy_Programs/De
mand_Side_Management/EE_and_Energy_Savings_Assist/CAEvaluationFramework.pdf

Evaluation Report 22
Table 2-1: Document-based Verification Samples and Precision by Measure
Measure Measure
Population
Sample
(With Finite
Population
Adjustment)*
Precision at
90% CI
Heat pump conversion (retrofit) 96 15
90%
Confidence
±7.1%
Precision
Ductless heat pump 244 16
Connected thermostat 392 17
Electronically commutated motors 51 13
Whole house fan (WHF) 129 15
Heat pump water heater (HPWH) 26 11
Heat pump upgrade (retrofit) 51 13
Open loop heat pump (new construction) 3 3
Open loop heat pump (retrofit) 3 3
Evaporative cooler 9 6
Heat pump upgrade (new construction) 14 8
Duct sealing 1 1
Total 1,019 121
*Assumes sample size of 68 for an infinite population, based on CV (coefficient of variation) = 0.5,
d (precision) = 10%, Z (critical value for 90% confidence) = 1.645.
The Evaluators reviewed 121 rebates’ associated documentation for the impact evaluation activities of
this program and surveyed a total of 129 rebated customers to verify installation as well as gather
customer satisfaction with the equipment, program, and utility in general. The table above represents
the number of rebates sampled in the Idaho and Oregon territories combined.
2.2.2.2 Survey-Based Verification
The Evaluators conducted survey-based verification for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The
primary purpose of conducting a verification survey is to confirm that the measure was installed and is
still currently operational.
The Evaluators used the sample plan provided previously in Table 2-1 for the program simple verification
task. The Evaluators developed a sampling plan that achieved a sampling precision of ±7.24% at 90%
statistical confidence for ISRs estimates at the measure-level during web-based survey verification.
The Evaluators implemented a web-based survey to complete the verification surveys. The findings from
these activities served to estimate ISRs for each measure surveyed. These ISRs were applied to
verification sample desk review rebates towards verified savings, which were then applied to the
population of rebates. The measure-level ISRs resulting from the survey-based verification are
summarized in Section 3.1. Although the Evaluators contacted all participants with valid email addresses
and received over 121 responses, meeting the program-level 90/10 precision goal, we were unable to
reach the measure-level response goal for several of the measures.
2.2.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed a deemed savings approach to quantify program impacts for the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency program. The Evaluators completed the steps outlined below to complete the impact
evaluation for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program rebates.

Evaluation Report 23
1. Deliver a detailed data request outlining the information we require for each rebated
equipment type.
2. Complete a thorough and comprehensive summary of program tracking data.
3. Validate the appropriate inputs to deemed savings and engineering algorithms were used for
each measure.
4. Verify the gross energy (kWh) savings that are a result of the program.
5. Summarize and integrate the impact evaluation findings into the final report.
The Evaluators completed the validation for specific measures across each program using the RTF unit
energy savings (UES) values, where available. The Evaluators ensured the proper measure unit savings
were recorded and used in the calculation of IPC’s ex-ante measure savings. The Evaluators requested
and used the RTF workbooks, New Mexico TRM, and IDL workpapers employed during calculation of ex-
ante measure savings. The Evaluators documented any cases where recommend values differed from
the specific unit energy savings workbooks used by IPC.
In cases where the RTF has existing unit energy savings (UES) applicable to IPC’s measures, the
Evaluators verified the quantity and quality of installations and apply the RTF’s UES to determine
verified savings. In cases where the RTF does not define UES for the measure, the Evaluators reviewed
and applied savings values derived from the following TRMs/workpapers:
◼ New Mexico TRM for evaporative coolers
◼ IDL workpaper for electronically commutated motors
◼ IDL workpaper for whole house fans
The Evaluators detail measure-specific impact evaluation methodologies in Section 3.2.
2.2.4 Process Evaluation Methodology
The process evaluation of the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program was designed to accomplish the
following research objectives:
◼ Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices;
◼ Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, outreach, and
ease of customer participation;
◼ Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting;
◼ Report findings, observations, and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness;
◼ Refine and refocus marketing strategies and increase program effectiveness;
◼ Provide recommendations for changing the program’s structure, management, administration,
design, delivery, operations, or target; and
◼ Help program designers and managers structure programs to achieve cost-effective savings.
The process evaluations focus on documenting the effects that the program activity had on encouraging
installations of the energy efficiency measure or influencing the customer to make an energy-efficiency
decision. The key research objectives in these process evaluations are:

Evaluation Report 24
◼ Document overall awareness of the program and its measures;
◼ Determine if there are significant differences between and among participant groups;
◼ Assess customer satisfaction with the utility and the program;
◼ Identify barriers for not participating;
◼ Identify areas for program improvement;
◼ Identify efficiencies in program implementation;
◼ Identify gaps in program participation for customers;
◼ Document energy efficiency motivations among participants;
◼ Identify patterns in how participants interact with measures
◼ Assess contractor engagement;
◼ Identify gaps in participation for contractors
◼ Characterize participating contractor practices for projects completed within and outside of the
program
◼ Document best practices;
◼ Understand how customers are interacting with the measures incentivized through the program;
◼ Assess contractor views of the program and barriers to participation; and
◼ Review trade ally management best practices and provide recommendations as appropriate.
The process evaluation was designed to ensure that best practices and lessons learned from individual
programs are then shared and incorporated across the entire program portfolio. In-depth interviews and
customer participant surveys contain a standard set of questions to be addressed across all IPC
programs to facilitate evaluation among and between programs. To achieve these objectives, the
Evaluation team engaged in the research activities described in the sections below.
2.2.4.1 Documentation Review
The Evaluator reviewed materials on the program website including published incentive levels and
application forms, as well as program marketing materials provided by program staff. This review
provided a general understanding of the program design and implementation practices. The review also
provided context for informing the interviews with program staff.
2.2.4.2 Program Staff Interviews
The Evaluators interviewed three IPC program staff. The interviews covered the following topics.
◼ Staff and partner roles in the program;
◼ The measures covered by the program and the decision processes used when considering
measure offerings;
◼ Program marketing approaches;
◼ Contractor management practices; and
◼ Clarification of the objectives for the process evaluation.
2.2.4.3 Participant Survey
The Evaluators administered a survey to customers who participated in the 2020 program. The objective
of the survey was to collect data on the following components:

Evaluation Report 25
◼ Sources of program awareness and motivations for participating;
◼ Customer experiences with the program and overall satisfaction;
◼ Measure specific questions related to how the installed equipment was utilized; and
◼ Home characteristics.
The Evaluator developed the survey guide in conjunction with Idaho Power staff to address of the above
objectives through various questions to the participating customers. The survey questions are provided
in Appendix B: Residential Participant Survey.
2.2.4.4 Participating Contractor Interviews
In January 2022, the Evaluator interviewed 19 Idaho Power approved contractors about the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program. These interviews addressed four key topics.
◼ Program Effectiveness
◼ Program Satisfaction
◼ Barriers to program participation and suggestions for improvement
◼ Installation procedures for program vs. non-program ducted heat pump projects
The Evaluator developed the interview guide in conjunction with Idaho Power staff. As is typical with in-
depth interviews, the guide provided a structure for the conversation. In some interviews, it is likely the
interviewer would adapt some questions based on the conversation, and ask supplemental questions
based on what they heard from respondents. In addition, receiving answers for all posed questions is
not guaranteed, however, each interview results in a depth of information about the contractors’
experience with the program and procedures that a survey would not be able to provide.
2.2.5 Additional Research Objectives Methodology
This section summarizes the methods the Evaluators employed for measures in which additional
measure research has been requested by IPC. The list of measures includes:
◼ Heat pumps (with and without PTCS);
◼ Ducted air source heat pump (Zones 2 and 3);
◼ Whole house fans;
◼ Electronically commutated motors;
◼ Evaporative coolers; and,
◼ Connected thermostats.
The Evaluators completed research towards the following measure outcomes:
◼ Verify heat pump installations meet Performance Tested Comfort Systems (“PTCS”) standards
for commissioning, controls and sizing and determine if the deactivated Commissioning,
Controls, and Sizing RTF workbook from January 2020 is reasonable to use to estimate verified
energy savings for this measure.
◼ Understand and calculate savings for ducted air source heat pump conversions from electric
forced air furnaces for Heating Zones 2 and 3. In addition, gather information on whether a 8.2

Evaluation Report 26
HSPF (federal standard) or 8.5 HSPF standard (RTF standard) is more typically installed for
measures installed outside the program.
◼ Verify savings and review engineering calculations and assumptions for electronically
commutated motors (ECMs), calculate savings relative to whole house fans and understand how
customers use whole house fans relative to air conditioning, and calculate savings related to
evaporative coolers and understand how customers use evaporative coolers relative to air
conditioning.
◼ Review customer settings on self-installed connected thermostats for heat pump applications in
order to understand customer configuration practices. Specifically, understand auxiliary heat
settings with relation to customer knowledge on heat source equipment settings.
The Evaluators summarize methodology to complete the measure-specific research goals in the sections
below.
2.2.5.1 Heat Pumps and PTCS Standards
The Evaluators completed verification to confirm that heat pump installations meet Performance Tested
Comfort Systems (“PTCS”) standards for commissioning, controls and sizing. One of the goals of this
research is to determine if the deactivated Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing RTF workbook from
January 2020 is reasonable to use to estimate verified energy savings for this measure. The Evaluators
defined the following activities to provide sufficient insight towards the above topics for the heat pump
installation with PTCS commissioning, controls, and sizing standards measure:
◼ Verify heat pumps meet PTCS standards
◼ Conduct participating contractor surveys to gather information on typical installation methods
for heat pumps in the Idaho Power service territory
◼ Conduct a billing regression analysis using consumption data comparing participant and
nonparticipant consumption to identify if PTCS standards result in additional savings as opposed
to heat pump installations without PTCS standards
The Evaluators completed verification of heat pump installations meeting PTCS standards, further
described below.
Verification of PTCS Standards
Verification of heat pumps meeting PTCS standards entail:
◼ A detailed review of project documentation;
◼ Secondary review of home characteristics;
◼ Analysis of pre- and post-retrofit duct leakage; and
◼ Documentation of control strategies (two-stage compressors, variable speed, etc.).
Housing characteristics were cross-referenced with publicly available data (from county assessor data or
from websites such as Zillow.com) to validate square footage, number of stories, home vintage, etc.
In-depth Contractor Interviews
PTCS standards on commissioning, controls, and sizing may not be implemented for nonparticipating
program heat pump installs. In order to gather additional insight into typical heat pump commissioning,
controls, and sizing standards, the Evaluators included questions in participating program contractor in-

Evaluation Report 27
depth interviews addressing the steps contractors typically undertake during a heat pump install that is
not rebated through the program.
Billing Analysis
In order to determine if heat pump installations with PTCS standards on commissioning, controls, and
sizing result in higher energy savings than heat pump installations without PTCS standards on
commissioning, controls, and sizing, the Evaluators conducted a billing data regression analysis using
monthly billing data. This analysis employed data from participating customers as well as data from
nonparticipating customers to identify differences in energy usage due to the PTCS standards.
The Evaluators first identified and separated nonparticipating households likely to be using heat pumps
from nonparticipating households likely using electric resistance furnaces. With a large enough
population of nonparticipant data, the Evaluators identified whether the customer has gas or electric
heating, and the extent to which backup heating is used.
The Evaluators used the nonparticipant households identified to have a heat pump as a counterfactual
group for the participating households that have installed a heat pump with verified PTCS standards on
commissioning, controls, and sizing. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was employed to match a subset
of nonparticipating heat pump households to the participating heat pump households. This step ensures
the two groups are statistically similar and therefore comparable.
After the above steps were completed, a regression analysis with the consumption data from these two
groups was conducted to identify differences in consumption between the groups. Further details of
regression model specifications explored during analysis are presented in Section 2.2.5.5. Although the
results of this analysis are unable to estimate incremental kWh savings differences due to the PTCS
standards, this analysis provides an indirect measure of savings that indicates the extent to which PTCS
standards increases energy efficiency relative to installations without those standards. The Evaluators
present this value, not as a direct measurement of savings, but as a proxy for the overall impacts of the
PTCS standards requirement.
This proxy value combined with contractor surveys on typical install behaviors inside and outside the
program, provide information on whether the PTCS requirements amount to additional energy savings.
Additionally, the above activities allow the Evaluators to determine if the deactivated RTF workbook UES
is reasonable to estimate verified savings for this program year.
2.2.5.2 Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ2/HZ3 & HSPF Baseline Research
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s approach to complete the following research objectives for the
air source heat pump conversions in the program:

Evaluation Report 28
◼ Understand and calculate savings for ducted air source heat pump conversions from electric
forced air furnaces for Heating Zones 2 and 3
◼ Gain insights on whether 8.2 HSPF or 8.5 HSPF efficiency standard are more typical for measures
installed within the program and outside the program
◼ If the RTF workbook allows, modify the RTF workbook baseline by integrating findings on typical
HSPF efficiency standards outside the program
Billing Analysis
The current RTF workbook has insufficient data to develop proven savings for Heating Zone 2 and 3.
Because Idaho Power’s service territory lies in Heating Zones 2 and 3, Idaho Power would like to explore
the available data due to the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. Savings may possibly be higher in
Heating Zone 2 and 3 than the RTF savings proven in Heating Zone 1, which is warmer than Heating
Zones 2 and 3. Due to these reasons, the Evaluators attempted to estimate verified savings for the air
source heat pump conversions in Heating Zones 2 and 3 using a regression billing analysis.
The Evaluators first identified nonparticipant electric furnace households in order to use as a
counterfactual for program-participating air source heat pump conversion from electric furnace
households.
The Evaluators then used the matched participating and nonparticipating household consumption data
to estimate verified energy savings in each the Heating Zone 2 and Heating Zone 3. The Evaluators then
conducted a regression analysis to provide a savings value for each Heating Zone. Further details of
regression model specifications explored during analysis are presented in Section 2.2.5.5.
Baseline Conversion Standards (8.2 vs. 8.5 HSPF) & RTF UES Modifications
The program requires a minimum 8.5 HSPF efficiency in order to participate in the program. In order to
understand typical HSPF baseline standards outside the program, the Evaluators included questions to
the in-depth contractor surveys addressing typical HSPF efficiency baselines for conversions conducted
outside the program, within the Idaho Power service territory. In addition to the above contractor
interview questions, the Evaluators explored if modification of the RTF baseline was possible, to include
information from contractor interviews on typical equipment efficiencies installed outside of the
program.
2.2.5.3 ECMs, Whole House Fans, and Evaporative Coolers
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s approach to:
◼ Verify savings and review engineering calculations and assumptions for electronically
commutated motors (ECMs);
◼ Calculate savings relative to whole house fans and understand how customers use whole house
fans relative to air conditioning; and,
◼ Calculate savings related to evaporative coolers and understand how customers use
evaporative coolers relative to air conditioning.
Electronically Commutated Motors
The Evaluators verified savings for ECMs by conducting an engineering review of assumptions used in
Idaho Power deemed savings estimates. This addressed:

Evaluation Report 29
◼ The run mode of the baseline and ECM blower (continuous versus intermittent); and
◼ The HVAC equipment configuration and fuel type.
Whole House Fans
To better understand how whole house fans are used by customers, the Evaluators included survey
questions for customers who installed whole house fans to provide insights into their use compared to
air conditioning.
Surveys address average hours of use of the whole-house fan per week during the summer cooling
season and compares impacts with assumptions for whole house fan deemed savings parameters in
other TRMs (normalized to length of cooling season).
Evaporative Coolers
The savings from evaporative coolers are dependent upon the type of usage they are otherwise
displacing. The energy savings potential is significant when compared against refrigerated air options
(including central and window air conditioning). The Evaluators address this in surveys with evaporative
cooling participants, addressing whether the unit replaced existing refrigerated air systems or if it
supplanted what would have otherwise been the purchase of a refrigerated air system. The Evaluators
further address if the participant has other cooling options in their home with a participant survey and
discuss with them when they use either system.
2.2.5.4 Smart Thermostats
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s approach to:
◼ Review customer settings on self-installed connected thermostats for heat pump applications in
order to understand customer configuration practices. Specifically, to understand customers’
understanding of proper smart thermostat settings, controls, and scheduling relative to the
home’s heating type, in addition to understanding customer understanding of auxiliary heat
settings.
In order to gain a better understanding of how customers are configuring smart thermostats with self-
installs, the Evaluators completed the following activities:
◼ Conduct a billing analysis comparing contractor smart thermostat installs and DIY smart
thermostat installs rebated through the program
◼ Conduct participant surveys with questions focusing on their smart thermostat energy-
impacting features and how they use them as well as what type of heating source they use
The Evaluators analyzed smart thermostat installs rebated through the program with heat pump heating
type. The Evaluators completed a pre/post billing analysis with contractor-installs and a pre/post billing
analysis with self-installs. The heating type is identifiable with monthly consumption data.
The Evaluators matched a statistically similar control group via PSM for each regression analysis. The
Evaluators first identified heating type of nonparticipant households, then match seasonal pre-period
usage as well as additional housing characteristics where applicable. The resulting regression results
quantifies energy saving differences for smart thermostats in heat pump households in which the

Evaluation Report 30
thermostats were professionally installed and DIY-installed. Further details of regression model
specifications explored during analysis are presented in Section 2.2.5.5.
In addition, the Evaluators included questions in customer surveys to provide insights into customer
configuration practices for connected thermostats. This information was collected as part of the
Evaluator’s larger survey effort for the process evaluation of the Heating and Cooling program.
2.2.5.5 Billing Analysis Methodology
The Evaluators estimated impact energy savings using a billing analysis for the following measures:
◼ Heat pumps (with and without PTCS)
◼ Ducted air source heat pump (Heating Zones 2 and 3)
◼ Smart thermostats (contractor-installed and DIY-installed)
This section describes the billing analysis methodology employed by the Evaluators as part of additional
research objectives for the program. The Evaluators performed billing analyses with a matched control
group and utilized a quasi-experimental method of producing a post-hoc control group. In program
designs where treatment and control customers are not randomly selected at the outset, such as for
downstream rebate programs, quasi-experimental designs are required.
For the purposes of this analysis, a household is considered a treatment household if it has received a
program incentive. Additionally, a household is considered a control household if the household has not
received a program incentive. To isolate measure impacts, treatment households are eligible to be
included in the billing analysis if they installed only one measure during the 2018, 2019, or 2020
program years. Isolation of individual measures are necessary to provide valid measure-level savings.
Households that installed more than one measure may display interactive energy savings effects across
multiple measures that are not feasibly identifiable. Therefore, instances where households installed
isolated measures are used in the billing analyses. In addition, the pre-period identifies the period prior
to measure installation while the post-period refers to the period following measure installation.
The Evaluators utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to match nonparticipants to similar participants
using pre-period billing data. PSM allows the evaluators to find the most similar household based on the
customers’ billed consumption trends in the pre-period and verified with statistical difference testing.
After matching based on these variables, the billing data for treatment and control groups are
compared, as detailed in IPMVP Option C. The Evaluators fit regression models to estimate weather-
dependent daily consumption differences between participating customer and nonparticipating
customer households.
Identify Nonparticipant Heating Type
The Evaluators developed two approaches in order to identify the heating type for potential control
customers.
1. Approach 1 separates customers into electric heating versus gas heating.
2. Approach 2 further separates electric heating customers identified in Approach 1 into Electric
Resistance (ER) versus Heat Pump (HP)/Other.

Evaluation Report 31
Both approaches depend on ratios that are unitless. A unitless ratio helps to ensure that the heating
type classification is not based simply on a customer’s overall load, which may result in bias for the
control group (e.g., by simply classifying customers based on their absolute loads, homes with higher
occupancy may have their heating type inaccurately classified).
The first approach identifies electric heating versus gas heating customers by utilizing monthly bills
normalized to the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY). The Evaluators calculated the ratio of normalized
winter kWh load (Jan-Dec) to normalized annual kWh load and considered customers with a ratio
greater than 0.3 to be electric heating and less than or equal to 0.3 to be gas heating. A ratio of 0.3
corresponded to the 95th percentile for customers in which the household heating type was known to
be a Gas Furnace. The Evaluators found that 2.7% of treatment customers identified as having electric
heating through this method in fact had gas heating (per the tracking data). This 2.7% is the assumed
error rate for control customers classified as having electric heating through this method.
The second approach separates customers identified as having electric heating into two groups: Electric
Resistance (ER) and Heat Pumps (HP)/Other. The Evaluators utilized hourly AMI data to calculate the
following ratio:
Average usage during first winter peak when Outside Air Temperature (OAT) is less than 20F
Average usage during first winter peak when OAT is between 40F and 65F
The first winter peak is defined as the hours between 8 am and 9 am, during the months of December,
January, and February.
The logic behind this method is that HP customers will display a higher ratio than non-HP customers
because they will rely on back-up electric heating when outside air temperatures are very low (see
Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1: HP/ER Classification Example

Evaluation Report 32
The Evaluators determined the OAT ranges based on the observable temperature ranges during the
2018/2019 winter. The Evaluators considered customers with a ratio less than 1.5 to be ER heating. The
remaining customers (with a ratio greater than or equal to 1.5) are either HP or ER that cannot be
classified. The ratio of 1.5 corresponded to the 50th percentile for treatment customers with an Electric
Furnace heating type reported in the tracking data. The Evaluators found that 10% of treatment
customers identified as having ER heating through this method in fact had HP heating (per the tracking
data). This is the assumed error rate for control customers classified as having ER heating through this
method.
Cohort Creation
The PSM approach estimates a propensity score for treatment and control customers using a logistic
regression model. A propensity score is a metric that summarizes several dimensions of household
characteristics into a single metric that can be used to group similar households. The Evaluators created
a post-hoc control group by compiling billing data from a subset of nonparticipants in the IPC territory to
compare against treatment households using quasi-experimental methods. This allowed the Evaluators
to select from a large group of similar households that have not installed an incented measure. With this
information, the Evaluators created statistically valid matched control groups for each measure via
seasonal pre-period usage. Prior to matching, the Evaluators assigned nonparticipant heating type with
the methodology provided in the section above. This allows the Evaluators to isolate customers with the
same heating type as the participants, leading to a better counterfactual match for the analyses.
The Evaluators matched customers in the control group to customers in the treatment group based on
nearest seasonal pre-period usage (e.g., summer, spring, fall, and winter) and exact 5-digit zip code
matching, after restricting to appropriate heating type in nonparticipants. After matching, the Evaluators
conducted a t-test for each month in the pre-period to help determine the success of PSM.
After PSM, the Evaluators ran the following regression models for each measure:
◼ Fixed effect Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) regression model (recommended in UMP
protocols)11
◼ Random effects post-program regression model (PPR) (recommended in UMP protocols)
The second model listed above (PPR) was selected because it had the best fit for the data, identified
using the adjusted R-squared. Further details on regression model specifications can be found below.
Data Collected
The following lists the data collected for the billing analysis:
1. Monthly billing data for program participants (treatment customers)
2. Monthly billing data for a group of non-program participants (control customers)
3. Program tracking data, including customer identifiers, address, and date of measure installation
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather data between January 1, 2018
and December 31, 2021)
5. Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) data

11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Uniform Methods Project (UMP) Chapter 17 Section 4.4.7.

Evaluation Report 33
Billing and weather data were obtained for program years 2018 through 2021. Weather data was
obtained from the nearest weather station with complete data during the analysis years for each
customer by mapping the weather station location with the customer zip code. TMY weather stations
were assigned to NOAA weather stations by geocoding the minimum distance between each set of
latitude and longitude points. This data is used for extrapolating savings to long-run, 30-year average
weather.
Data Preparation
The following steps were taken to prepare the billing data:
1. Gathered billing data for homes that participated in the program.
2. Excluded participant homes that also participated in the other programs, if either program
disqualifies the combination of any other rebate or participation.
3. Gathered billing data for similar customers that did not participate in the program in evaluation.
4. Removed bills missing usage, billing start date, or billing end date.
5. Remove bills with outlier durations (<10 days or >60 days).
6. Excluded bills with consumption indicated to be outliers (average daily usage > 200 kWh).
7. Calendarized bills (recalculates bills, usage, and total billed such that bills begin and end at the
start and end of each month).
8. Obtained weather data from nearest NOAA weather station using 5-digit zip code per household.
9. Computed Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for a range of setpoints.
The Evaluators assigned a setpoint of 65°F for both HDD and CDD.
10. Selected treatment customers with only one type of measure installation during the analysis years
and combined customer min/max install dates with billing data (to define pre- and post-periods).
11. Restricted to treatment customers with install dates in specified range (typically February 1, 2020
through October 1, 2020) to allow for sufficient post-period billing data.
12. Restricted to control customers with heating systems representative of treatment group. This has
the effect of removing control customers with incomparable usage relative to the treatment
group.
13. Removed customers with incomplete post-period bills (<6 months).
14. Removed customers with incomplete pre-period bills (<6 months).
15. Restricted control customers to those with usage that was comparable with the treatment group
usage.
16. Created a matched control group using PSM and matching on pre-period seasonal usage and exact
matching to zip code and/or Heating Zone.
Regression Models
The Evaluators ran the following models for matched treatment and control customers for each
measure with sufficient participation. For net savings, the Evaluators selected either Model 1 or Model
2. The model with the best fit (highest adjusted R-squared) was selected.
Model 1: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference Regression Model
The following equation displays the first model specification to estimate the average daily savings due to
the measure.

Evaluation Report 34
Equation 2-3: Fixed Effects Difference-in-Difference (D-n-D) Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶𝑖𝑡=𝛼0 +𝛽1(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)𝑖𝑡+𝛽2(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)𝑖𝑡+𝛽3(𝐻𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡+𝛽4(𝐶𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡
+𝛽5(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡+𝛽6(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡+𝛽7(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)𝑖𝑡
+𝛽8(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷× 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)𝑖𝑡+𝛽9(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)𝑡+𝛽10(𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦)𝑖+𝜀𝑖𝑡
Where,
◼ i = the ith household
◼ t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
◼ 𝐴𝐷𝐶𝑖𝑡 = Average daily usage reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
◼ 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡 = A dummy variable indicating pre- or post-period designation during period t
at home i
◼ 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 = A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
◼ 𝐻𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑡 = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
◼ 𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑡 = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
◼ 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑡= A set of dummy variables indicating the month during period t
◼ 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑖 = a customer-specific dummy variable isolating individual household
effects
◼ 𝜀𝑖𝑡 = The error term
◼ 𝛼0= The model intercept
◼ 𝛽1−10 = Coefficients determined via regression
The Average Daily Consumption (ADC) is calculated as the total monthly billed usage divided by the
duration of the bill month. 𝛽2 represents the average change in daily baseload in the post-period
between the treatment and control group and 𝛽7 and 𝛽8 represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the 𝛽7 and 𝛽8 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD and
CDD data. However, in the case of gas usage, only the coefficient for HDD is utilized because CDDs were
not included in the regression model.
The equation below displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data. TMY data is weighted by the number of households assigned to each
weather station.
Equation 2-4: Savings Extrapolation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛽2 ∗365.25 +𝛽7 ∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐻𝐷𝐷+𝛽8 ∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐶𝐷𝐷
Model 2: Random Effects Post-Program Regression Model
The following equation displays the second model specification to estimate the average daily savings
due to the measure. The post-program regression (PPR) model combines both cross‐sectional and time
series data in a panel dataset. This model uses only the post‐program data, with lagged energy use for
the same calendar month of the pre‐program period acting as a control for any small systematic

Evaluation Report 35
differences between the treatment and control customers; in particular, energy use in calendar month t
of the post‐program period is framed as a function of both the participant variable and energy use in the
same calendar month of the pre‐program period. The underlying logic is that systematic differences
between treatment and control customers will be reflected in the differences in their past energy use,
which is highly correlated with their current energy use. These interaction terms allow pre‐program
usage to have a different effect on post‐program usage in each calendar month.
The model specification is as follows:
Equation 2-5: Post-Program Regression (PPR) Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶𝑖𝑡=𝛼0 +𝛽1(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)𝑖+𝛽2 (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒)𝑖+𝛽3 (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟)𝑖
+𝛽4(𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟)𝑖+𝛽5(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)𝑡+𝛽6(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒)𝑖𝑡
+𝛽7(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟)𝑖𝑡+𝛽8(𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ× 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟)𝑖𝑡
+𝛽9(𝐻𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡+𝛽10(𝐶𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡+𝛽11(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝐻𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡+𝛽12(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝐶𝐷𝐷)𝑖𝑡
+𝜀𝑖𝑡
Where,
◼ i = the ith household
◼ t = the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period
◼ 𝐴𝐷𝐶𝑖𝑡 = Average daily usage for reading t for household i during the post-treatment period
◼ 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 = A dummy variable indicating treatment status of home i
◼ 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑡 = Dummy variable indicating month of month t
◼ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑖 = Average daily usage across household i’s available pre-treatment billing reads
◼ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑆𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖 = Average daily usage in the summer months across household i’s
available pretreatment billing reads
◼ 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖 = Average daily usage in the winter months across household i’s available
pre-treatment billing reads
◼ 𝐻𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑡 = Average heating degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during
period t at home i
◼ 𝐶𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑡 = Average cooling degree days (base with optimal Degrees Fahrenheit) during period t
at home i (if electric usage)
◼ 𝜀𝑖𝑡 = Customer-level random error
◼ 𝛼0= The model intercept for home i
◼ 𝛽1−12 = Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficient 𝛽1 represents the average change in consumption between the pre-period and post-
period for the treatment group and 𝛽11 and 𝛽12 represent the change in weather-related daily
consumption in the post-period between the groups. Typical monthly and annual savings were
estimated by extrapolating the 𝛽11 and 𝛽12 coefficients with Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) HDD and
CDD data.
Equation 2-6: Savings Extrapolation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝛽1 ∗365.25 +𝛽11 ∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐻𝐷𝐷+𝛽12 ∗𝑇𝑀𝑌 𝐶𝐷𝐷

Evaluation Report 36
The equation above displays how savings were extrapolated for a full year utilizing the coefficients in the
regression model and TMY data.
2.2.6 Data Collection
The following primary data collection activities were completed to support the evaluation of the HCE
Program.
2.2.6.1 Program Staff Interviews
The Evaluators interviewed three IPC program staff to gain understanding of the program design and
implementation procedures to inform the process evaluation of the program. The interviews were held
with two program analysts and the senior engineer who is responsible for the day-to-day management
of the program.
2.2.6.2 Participant Survey
The Evaluators administered a survey to customers who participated in the 2020 program. The
participant survey responses were used to inform the process evaluation, address additional research
questions on thermostat settings, and verify the measure installations.
The survey was administered online, and customers were recruited by email in January 2022. Each
customer received up to three emails asking them to complete the survey. Customers were offered a
$10 electronic gift card for completing the survey. Customers with inactive IPC accounts were excluded
from the survey sample.
Table 2-2 summarizes the survey data collection. As shown, 129 program participants completed the
survey and the overall response rate was 19%.
Table 2-2: Summary of Survey Data Collection
Measurement
Number
of
Project
Sites
Count of Sites with Measures Installed
Thermostats
Installed on
Heat Pumps
Thermostats
Installed on
other HVAC
Equipment
Whole
House
Fans
Evaporative
Coolers
Heat
Pumps
Electronically
Commutated
Motors
Heat
Pump
Water
Heaters
Population 784 181 211 129 9 409 51 26
Customers
Contacted by
Email
675 136 170 112 9 253 40 25
Survey
Responses 129 28 39 21 2 41 2 8
Response Rate 19% 21% 23% 19% 22% 16% 5% 32%
Table 2-3 compares the distributions of measures installed at participating sites to those who completed
the survey. As shown, the survey sample was fairly representative of the participant population,
although a smaller share of respondents who received heat pump incentives completed the survey.

Evaluation Report 37
Table 2-3: Distribution of Measures Installed at Participating Sites and Installed by Survey Respondents
Measure
Percent of
Sites with
Measure
Installed
Percent of
Survey
Respondents
with Measure
Installed
Thermostats Installed on Heat Pumps 23% 22%
Thermostats Installed on other HVAC Equipment 27% 30%
Whole House Fans 16% 16%
Evaporative Coolers 1% 2%
Heat Pumps 52% 32%
Electronically Commutated Motors 7% 2%
Heat Pump Water Heaters 3% 6%
2.2.6.3 Participating Contractor Interviews
In January 2022, the Evaluator interviewed 19 Idaho Power approved contractors about the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program. The interviews informed the process evaluation and addressed research
questions on heat pump installation practices and efficiencies of heat pump units not installed through
the program.
Idaho Power provided a list of 82 approved contractor contacts. From that list, we recruited potential
respondents via email and phone from January 13 to January 25, 2022. We contacted all 82 respondents
and received feedback from 19 contractors (Table 2-4). Seven of the participants were from the top
performers group that completed at least four projects, six were completed from contractors who
completed projects one to three projects, and six from those who did not complete a project in 2020.
Table 2-4: Contractor Interview Disposition Summary
Disposition Count
Complete 17
Partial complete 2
Refused 11
Attempted 50
Bad number 2
Total 82
The Evaluators attempted to reach contractors up to five times and offered a $50 gift card to all
contractors that completed interviews with us. The interviews, conducted by phone, averaged about 30
minutes, and were recorded with permission of the respondent.
2.2.7 Net-To-Gross
The Northwest RTF UES measures do not require NTG adjustments as they are built into the deemed
savings estimates. In addition, billing analyses with counterfactual control groups, as proposed in our
general methodology, does not require a NTG adjustment, as the counterfactual represents the
efficiency level at current market (i.e., the efficiency level the customer would have installed had they
not participated in the program).

Evaluation Report 38
However, the Evaluators employed the New Mexico TRM12 to calculate verified savings for the
evaporative coolers measure, which requires that a NTG ratio indicating the proportion of projects
which had installed the evaporative cooler to replace refrigerated air must be applied to this deemed
savings value. For this measure, “NTG” is intertwined with baseline – savings from evaporative coolers
are based on their potential to delay conversion to refrigerated air or to induce customers to retrofit
from refrigerated air. To the extent that a customer may have a preexisting evaporative cooling system
and no stated intention to otherwise convert to refrigerated air, this is simultaneously a question of
baseline and NTG. The Evaluators provided a literature review to select the weighted average baseline
for this measure (refrigerated air versus standard efficiency evaporative coolers), which in the literature
is denominated as a “NTG”. Further details are provided in the impact evaluation results section for
evaporative coolers in Section 3.2.4.
2.2.8 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators used the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) to quantify non-energy impacts (NEIs) and/or
non-energy benefits (NEBs) for residential measures with established RTF values where available.
Measures with quantified NEIs and NEBs include residential air source heat pumps, ductless heat pumps,
duct sealing, heat pump water heaters, open loop heat pumps, and smart thermostats.

12 https://www.nm-prc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/New-Mexico-TRM-2021-Final-03-09-2021.pdf

Work Plan 39
3. Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
to verify program-level and measure-level energy savings for PY2020. The following sections summarize
findings for the electric impact evaluation in the program in the Idaho and Oregon service territory. The
Evaluators used data collected and reported in the tracking database, online application forms,
applicable TRMs and workpapers to evaluate savings. Table 3-1 summarizes the Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program verified impact savings by measure.
Table 3-1: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure
Measure
Expected
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 10,432 6,780 65.00%
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 658,487 590,769 89.72%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 27,359 64,413 235.44%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 56,381 53,558 94.99%
Ductless Heat Pump 556,279 553,529 99.51%
Duct Sealing 848 848 100.03%
Evaporative Cooler 13,239 5,878 44.40%
Electronically Commutated Motor 145,921 165,074 113.13%
Heat Pump Water Heater 40,768 32,456 79.61%
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 23,444 23,442 99.99%
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5
COP 7,054 7,054 100.00%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump:
3.5 COP 14,108 15,622 110.73%
Smart Thermostat - Self Installed 127,114 106,073 83.45%
Smart Thermostat - Contractor Installed 100,152 92,382 92.24%
Whole House Fan 57,482 61,800 107.51%
Total 1,839,068 1,779,679 96.77%
In PY2020, Idaho Power completed and provided incentives for residential electric measures in Idaho
and Oregon under the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program and reported total electric energy savings
of 1,839,068 kWh and total verified energy savings of 1,779,679 kWh. The air source heat pump
upgrades, duct sealing, electronically commutated motors, and open loop heat pump conversions, and
whole house fans measures exceeded savings goals based on reported savings. The remaining measures
did not meet expected savings, leading to an overall achievement of 96.77% of the expected savings for
the program. Further details of the impact evaluation results by program are provided in the sections
following.
The Evaluators also conducted billing analyses to support additional research objectives defined by IPC.
The results of the billing analysis are not used towards the verified impacts for this impact evaluation,
but solely as additional insights to measure installation practices. The Evaluators define these additional
research objectives in Section 2.2.5.
The Evaluators summarize the non-energy impacts and non-energy benefits results in the table below.

Evaluation Report 40

Table 3-2: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Verified NEIs & NEBs
Measure
C02 Reduction
(Tons over
Expected
Measure Life)
Escalated
NEBs ($/yr)
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 70.875 $1,314.54
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,173.86 $98,869.38
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 103.0625 $1,836.63
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 567.8 $9,027.05
Ductless Heat Pump 5,726.82 $90,345.49
Duct Sealing 9.00 $129.70
Evaporative Cooler N/A N/A
Electronically Commutated Motor N/A N/A
Heat Pump Water Heater 208.24 $3,117.47
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 256.50 $3,815.31
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5
COP N/A N/A
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat
Pump: 3.5 COP N/A N/A
Smart Thermostat - Self Installed 1,159.70 $19,084.75
Smart Thermostat - Contractor Installed 986.90 $16,132.54
Whole House Fan N/A N/A
Total 15,262.76 $243,672.87
3.1 Simple Verification Results
The Evaluators surveyed participant customers between January and February of 2022 using a web
approach (online survey). The Evaluators deployed 675 surveys and received responses from 129 unique
customers that participated in Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. Customers with a
valid email were sent the survey via an email invitation. The Evaluators summarize the aggregate results
of the survey in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Simple Verification Survey Response Rate
Measurement Number of
Project Sites
Population 784
Customers Contacted by Email 675
Survey Responses 129
Response Rate 19%
3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates of installed measures from the 129 simple verification survey
responses detailed above. The Evaluators asked participants if the rebated equipment is currently
installed and working, in addition to questions about the new equipment fuel type. The Evaluators
achieved 7.10% precision for the ductless heat pump, connected thermostat, and whole house fan

Evaluation Report 41

measures in the program through survey verification, summarized in Table 3-4. Also presented in the
following table is the measure-level ISRs determined from the verification survey for each measure that
achieved 90/10 precision.
Table 3-4: Simple Verification Precision by Measure
Measure Population Respondents ISR
Ductless heat pump 244 27 100%
Connected thermostat 392 74 100%
Whole house fan (WHF) 129 22 100%
The measures which did not achieve the response goals still displayed 100% in-service rates. These ISR
values were utilized in the desk reviews for the program in order to calculate verified savings. For
measures in which 90/10 precision was not met, the Evaluators applied an assumed 100% in-service rate
for the measure. Additional insights from the survey responses are summarized in Appendix B:
Residential Participant Survey.
3.2 Measure-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program and measure-specific impact analysis activities, results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program in the section below.
3.2.1 Air Source Heat Pumps
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to upgrade their existing electric or
oil/propane heating equipment with high efficiency air source heat pumps. Customers receive incentives
after installation and after submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-5 summarizes the air source
heat pump measures offered under this program.
Table 3-5: Air Source Heat Pump Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF New construction high efficiency air source heat pump RTF UES
Electric Heating System to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF
Conversion from electric heating system to high
efficiency air source heat pump RTF UES
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF
Retrofit from existing air source heat pump to high
efficiency air source heat pump RTF UES
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF
Conversion from oil/propane heating system to high
efficiency air source heat pump RTF UES
Table 3-6 summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the impact evaluation of the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program air source heat pump measures.

Evaluation Report 42

Table 3-6: Air Source Heat Pump Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings Realization Rate
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 14 10,432 6,780 65.00%
Electric Heating System to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 88 658,487 590,769 89.72%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 51 27,359 64,413 235.44%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 8 56,381 53,558 94.99%
Total 161 752,658 715,520 95.07%
The air source heat pump measures displayed verified savings of 715,520 kWh with a realization rate of
95.07% against the expected savings for the program. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the air source heat pumps in
the section below.
3.2.1.1 Database Review & Document Verification
The following sections describe the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for
the air source heat pump measures offered under the program. Before conducting the impact analysis,
the Evaluators conducted a database review for the air source heat pump measures. The Evaluators
selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data inputs, summarized in Section
2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected 76 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators note that the required information was validated by IPC employees prior to providing
incentives to the customer. The Evaluators found the air source heat pump rebate application forms for
the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather all required information to
claim savings for the measure through the RTF measure specifications. However, the Evaluators found
many of the program application documents submitted by customers to be incomplete from the
customer. IPC staff retroactively fill in information after following up with the customer. The information
most commonly omitted from the customer consist of the housing type (single-family vs. manufactured
home), home vintage, and home square footage.
All 76 rebate documents were provided with associated AHRI documents for the project. In addition, the
Evaluators found all 76 sampled air source heat pump rebate documents to display HSPF values
consistent with the HSPF values found on the AHRI directory for each model. All sampled air source heat
pump upgrades displayed SEER values of 14 or higher, as required by the RTF. In addition, all air source
heat pump conversion equipment met or exceeded the federal HSPF minimum requirement.
The Evaluators found some inconsistencies displayed in the tracking database for this measure:
◼ Of the 76 sampled rebates, seven displayed discrepancies in documented home type. These
seven rebates had been categorized as single-family homes; however, rebate documentation
confirmed the site was a manufactured home. In addition, two of the sampled rebates had

Evaluation Report 43

documented the Heating Zone for the site inconsistent with the RTF Heating Zone for the zip
code.
◼ The Evaluators note that one of the 76 sampled air source heat pump retrofit projects had
provided no information on the project, however, savings were still claimed for the measure.
The rebate application, Heating & Cooling Efficiency air source heat pump worksheet, and
equipment sizing worksheets provided for this project were blank, and therefore the Evaluators
did not claim any savings for this project.
◼ Although all 76 sampled air source heat pump rebate documents to display HSPF values
consistent with the HSPF values found on the AHRI directory for each model, two of the air
source heat pump upgrade measures displayed HSPF values of 8.5, lower than the RTF minimum
of 9.0. The Evaluators removed verified savings for these two projects.
◼ In addition, the Evaluators identified and corrected 7 project home types (SF vs MH),
disqualified savings for two projects that did not meet RTF HSPF requirements, and identified
and corrected one project in which the Heating Zone was documented incorrectly.
The Evaluators note that the IPC tracking database does not consistently reflect the same values found
in the mail-in rebate applications documents. The Evaluators recommend IPC work to improve methods
for collecting web and mail-in rebate application information to reconcile the database.
3.2.1.2 Verification Surveys
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed heat pump still properly functioning?
Table 3-7 displays the ISRs for each of the air source heat pump measures for the Idaho and Oregon
territory combined.
Table 3-7: Air Source Heat Pump Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service
Rate
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5
HSPF 14 2 2 100%
Electric Heating System to
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5
HSPF
88 10 10 100%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 51 5 5 100%
Oil/Propane Heating System
to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5
HSPF
8 0 N/A N/A
*These ISRs did not meet 90/10 precision, however, the Evaluators applied a 100% ISR to each of the ASHP measures

Evaluation Report 44

All survey respondents for each water heater measure described equipment to be currently functioning,
leading to a 100% ISR. Although the survey responses did not meet 90/10 precision for the population of
ASHP measures, The Evaluators applied 100% ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each
measure.
3.2.1.3 PTCS Verification
As part of the document verification and impact evaluation activities, the Evaluators reviewed the
sampled rebates for the air source heat pump conversion, retrofit, and new construction measures to
verify if the projects meet PTCS requirements. The Evaluators provide the results of the PTCS verification
efforts in Section 5.1.1.1 under additional research objectives results.
3.2.1.4 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the air source heat
pump measures. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the air source heat
pump measure along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure. The
Evaluators employed the following RTF workbooks to calculate verified savings for the measure:
◼ ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_2
◼ ResMHExistingHVAC_v3_4
◼ ResHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizingSF_v3_6
◼ ResMHHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizing_v3_3
The Evaluators conducted a billing analysis for the air source heat pump upgrade measure in order to
quantify relative savings achieved from additional commissioning, controls, and sizing activities
implemented by Idaho Power through the program. The Evaluators estimated a total of 1,263 kWh
saved for each air source heat pump upgrade project completed through the program. Because the
additional commissioning, controls, and sizing activities completed by IPC are not able to be claimed
through the deactivated RTF workbook, the Evaluators deemed it appropriate to apply the results of the
billing analysis to the air source heat pump upgrade measure. This estimate encompasses observable
savings derived from the projects completed through the program, including both the HVAC equipment
savings and the additional commissioning, controls, and sizing installation practices. Therefore, the
realization rate for this measure deviates substantially from expected savings for the measure. The
Evaluators recommend continuing to conduct billing analysis or measurement verification to quantify
savings for ducted heat pumps rebated through the program. Further detail of the billing analysis results
is presented in Section 5.1.1.1.
The verified savings for the air source heat pump measures are 715,520 kWh with a realization rate of
95.07%, as displayed in Table 3-6. The realization rate for the electric savings in the air source heat
pump measures deviate from 100% due to the various document review findings. During document
review, the Evaluators found 19 of the 55 sampled air source heat pump projects that claimed PTCS
savings had met PTCS commissioning standards. The Evaluators removed RTF commissioning, controls,
and sizing savings from projects were unable to be confirmed to meet PTCS certification. This removal of
savings for the commissioning, controls, and sizing component was the largest contributing factor to low
realization rate for air source heat pump projects. The realization rates verified from the sample were

Evaluation Report 45

used to extrapolate savings to the population. The Evaluators applied the measure-level realization rates
to the population for each measure.
For the air source heat pump upgrades measure, the Evaluators applied verified savings resulting from
billing analysis. The Evaluators summarize the expected savings and the verified savings and realization
rates for each component of the air source heat pump measures in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9.
Table 3-8: Expected Air Source Heat Pump Savings by Component
Measure
Expected
HVAC
Component
Savings (kWh)
Expected
Commissioning,
Controls, Sizing
Component
Savings (kWh)
Expected
Total kWh
Savings (kWh)
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 1,446 8,986 10,432
Electric Heating System to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 606,721 51,766 658,487
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,223 22,136 27,359
Oil/Propane Heating System to
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 53,230 3,150 56,381
ASHP 666,620 86,038 752,658

Table 3-9: Verified Air Source Heat Pump Savings and Realization Rate by Component
Measure
Verified
HVAC
Component
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Comm.,
Controls,
Sizing
Component
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Total kWh
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate HVAC
Component
Realization
Rate
Comm.,
Controls,
Sizing
Component
Total
Realization
Rate
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 1,445 5,335 6,780 99.95% 59.37% 65.00%
Electric Heating System to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 579,473 11,296 590,769 95.51% 21.82% 89.72%
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 64,413 0 64,413 N/A N/A 235.44%
Oil/Propane Heating System to
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 50,643 2,915 53,558 95.14% 92.53% 94.99%
Total 695,974 19,546 715,520 104.40% 22.72% 95.07%
*The results of billing analysis were used to verify savings for this measure and therefore
components are unable to be separated
Due to verification of the air source heat pump upgrade measure being derived from the billing analysis,
component-level savings are unable to be summarized in the table above. Instead, total realization rate
is provided for this measure. The changes summarized in the document verification and PTCS
verification findings led to the lowered realization rate for the air source heat pump measures in the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and therefore did
not affect the verified savings realization rates.

Evaluation Report 46

3.2.1.5 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators also verified total non-energy impacts and benefits derived from the RTF workbook for
the air source heat pump measures. These values were derived from values provided in the RTF
workbooks under CO2 reductions over expected measure life and present value total societal benefits.
The Evaluators provide a summary of the results in the table below.
Table 3-10: Air Source Heat Pump Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits

3.2.2 Ductless Heat Pumps
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to upgrade their existing zonal electric,
heating equipment with high efficiency ductless heat pumps. Customers receive incentives after
installation and after submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-11 summarizes the ductless heat
pump measure offered under this program.
Table 3-11: Ductless Heat Pump Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Ductless Heat Pump
Ductless heat pump with HSPF 9.0 or greater installed
in the main living area of the house with existing zonal
electric heat
RTF UES
Table 3-12 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the ductless heat pump measure.
Table 3-12: Ductless Heat Pump Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Ductless Heat Pump 244 556,279 553,529 99.51%
The ductless heat pump measure displayed verified savings of 553,529 kWh with a realization rate of
99.51% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the ductless heat pumps in the
section below.
Measure
C02 Reduction
(Tons Over
Expected
Measure Life)
Escalated
NEBs ($/yr)
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 70.88 $1,314.54
Electric Heating System to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6173.86 $98,869.38
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 103.06 $1,836.63
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 567.80 $9,027.05
Total 6,915.60 $111,047.61

Evaluation Report 47

3.2.2.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the
ductless heat pump measures offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the ductless heat
pump measures. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected 17 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators note that the required information was validated by IPC employees prior to providing
incentives to the customer. The Evaluators found the ductless heat pump rebate application forms for
the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather all of the required
information to claim savings for the measure through the RTF measure specifications. The Evaluators
found many of the program application documents submitted by customers to be incomplete from the
customer. IPC staff retroactively fill in information after following up with the customer. The information
most commonly omitted from the customer consist of the housing type (single-family vs. manufactured
home), home vintage, home square footage, and existing cooling type.
All 17 rebate documents were provided with associated AHRI documents for the project, and all 17
projects qualified for RTF savings for ductless heat pumps. In addition, the Evaluators found all 17
sampled ductless heat pump rebate documents to display HSPF values consistent with the HSPF values
found on the AHRI directory for each model. However, one of the ductless heat pump upgrade projects
had assigned claimed savings for an HSPF tier higher than that of which the equipment displayed.
The Evaluators note that the IPC tracking database does not consistently reflect the same values found
in the mail-in rebate applications documents. The Evaluators recommend IPC work to improve methods
for collecting web and mail-in rebate application information to reconcile the database.
3.2.2.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of ductless heat pump rebate participant customers to survey for simple
verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed heat pump still properly functioning?
Table 3-13 displays the ISRs for each of the ductless heat pump measures for Idaho and Oregon territory
combined.
Table 3-13: Ductless Heat Pump Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Ductless Heat Pump 244 26 26 100%
*These ISRs did not meet 90/10 precision, however, the Evaluators applied a 100% ISR to each of the DHP measures

Evaluation Report 48

All survey respondents for each heat pump measure described equipment to be currently functioning,
leading to a 100% ISR. Although the survey responses did not meet 90/10 precision for the population of
DHP measures, The Evaluators applied 100% ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each
project.
3.2.2.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the ductless heat pump
measures. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the ductless heat pump
measure along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure. The
Evaluators employed the following RTF workbook to calculate verified savings for the measure:
◼ ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_2
The verified savings for the measure is 533,529 kWh with a realization rate of 99.51%, as displayed in
Table 3-12. The realization rate for the electric savings in the ductless heat pump measures deviate from
100% due to the correction of savings for one project. The Evaluators identified and corrected one
project in which the HSPF value for the equipment was documented incorrectly, leading to 93%
realization rate for this project. The Evaluators also rounded each project’s savings to the nearest full
kWh, as recommended when using the RTF UES values. The realization rates verified from the sample
were used to extrapolate savings to the population. The Evaluators applied the measure-level realization
rates to the population for the measure.
These two changes led to the lowered realization rate for the ductless heat pump measures in the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and therefore did
not affect the verified savings realization rates.
3.2.2.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators also verified total non-energy impacts and benefits derived from the RTF workbook for
the ductless heat pump measures. These values were derived from values provided in the RTF
workbooks under CO2 reductions over expected measure life and present value total societal benefits.
The Evaluators provide a summary of the results in the table below.
Table 3-14: Ductless Heat Pump Non-Energy Benefits

3.2.3 Duct Sealing
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to conduct duct sealing for their homes
to reduce energy consumption. Customers receive incentives after installing duct sealing and after
submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-15 summarizes the duct sealing measure offered under
this program.
Measure
C02 Reduction
(Tons Over
Expected Measure
Life)
Escalated NEBs
($/yr)
Ductless Heat Pump 5,726.82 $90,345.49

Evaluation Report 49

Table 3-15: Duct Sealing Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Duct Sealing Conduct duct sealing in existing home RTF UES
Table 3-16 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the duct sealing measure.
Table 3-16: Duct Sealing Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Duct Sealing 1 847.72 848 100.03%
The duct sealing measure displayed verified savings of 848 kWh with a realization rate of 100.03%
against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific impact
analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the duct sealing projects in the section
below.
3.2.3.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the duct
sealing measures offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the duct sealing
measures. One duct sealing project was completed in PY2020. The Evaluators verified documentation
from this project.
The Evaluators found the duct sealing rebate application forms for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program had provided questions to gather all required information to claim savings for the measure
through the RTF measure specifications. The Evaluators did not find any deviations between the
database values and the rebate documentation provided.
3.2.3.2 Verification Surveys
Due to low participation for this measure, the Evaluators did not conduct verification survey for this
measure. The Evaluators assumed 100% in-service rate for the duct sealing measure
3.2.3.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the duct sealing
measure. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the duct sealing measure
along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure. The Evaluators
employed the following RTF workbook to calculate verified savings for the measure:
◼ ResSFDuctSealing_v5_1
The verified savings for the measure is 848 kWh with a realization rate of 100.03%, as displayed in Table
3-16. The realization rate for the electric savings in the duct sealing measures deviate from 100% due to
rounding each project’s savings to the nearest full kWh, as recommended when using the RTF UES

Evaluation Report 50

values. This change alone led to the realization rate of 100.03% for the duct sealing measures in the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for the project was 100% and therefore did not affect the
verified savings realization rates.
3.2.3.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators also verified total non-energy impacts and benefits derived from the RTF workbook for
the duct sealing measure. These values were derived from values provided in the RTF workbooks under
CO2 reductions over expected measure life and present value total societal benefits. The Evaluators
provide a summary of the results in the table below.
Table 3-17: Duct Sealing Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits

3.2.4 Evaporative Coolers
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to install an evaporative cooler to
reduce the use of central A/C for cooling in the summer months. Customers receive incentives after
installation and after submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-18 summarizes the evaporative
cooler measure offered under this program.
Table 3-18: Evaporative Cooler Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Evaporative Coolers A home cooling product that is an alternative to
central or window air conditioners
New Mexico
TRM
Table 3-19 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the evaporative cooler.
Table 3-19: Evaporative Cooler Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Evaporative Cooler 9 13,239 5,878 44.40%
The evaporative cooler measure displayed verified savings of 5,878 kWh with a realization rate of
44.40% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the evaporative coolers in the
section below.
3.2.4.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the
evaporative cooler measure offered under the program.
Measure
C02
Reduction
(Tons Over
Expected
Measure Life)
Escalated
NEBs ($/yr)
Duct sealing 9.00 $129.70

Evaluation Report 51

Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the evaporative
cooler projects. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected 6 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators note that the required information was validated by IPC employees prior to providing
incentives to the customer. The Evaluators found the evaporative cooler rebate application forms for
the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather all required information to
claim savings for the measure. However, the Evaluators found many of the program application
documents submitted by customers to be incomplete from the customer. IPC staff retroactively fill in
information after following up with the customer. The information most commonly omitted from the
customer consist of the home vintage, and home square footage.
The Evaluators note that no discrepancies were found between the database and the rebate documents.
3.2.4.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of evaporative cooler rebate participant customers to survey for simple
verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed evaporative cooler still properly functioning?
◼ Why did you purchase the evaporative cooler?
◼ In addition to the evaporative cooler, which of the following do you use to cool your home?
◼ Would you say that the evaporative cooler is the main way that you cool your house?
◼ What is the main way you cool your home?
◼ Which of the following best describes why you use the evaporative cooler?
Table 3-20 displays the ISRs for each of the evaporative coolers measures for Idaho and Oregon territory
combined.
Table 3-20: Evaporative Cooler Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Evaporative Cooler 9 2 2 100%
*These ISRs did not meet 90/10 precision, however, the Evaluators applied a 100% ISR to each of the EC projects
All survey respondents for each evaporative cooler measure described equipment to be currently
functioning, leading to a 100% ISR. Although the survey responses did not meet 90/10 precision for the
population of EC measure, The Evaluators applied 100% ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings
for each project.
One of the two respondents had indicated that they had installed the evaporative cooler to replace
refrigerated air.

Evaluation Report 52

3.2.4.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the evaporative cooler
measures. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current New Mexico TRM deemed savings values for
evaporative coolers along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.
The Evaluators employed the following New Mexico TRM section to calculate verified savings for the
measure:
◼ New Mexico Technical Reference Manual, July 2021, Section 4.7 Evaporative Coolers13
The Evaluators reviewed the New Mexico TRM and confirmed that savings values are applicable to the
Idaho Power service territory, due to similarity of cooling degree days between Boise, ID and Santa Fe,
NM. Therefore, the Evaluators utilized the Santa Fe savings values derived from the New Mexico TRM
for the evaporative cooler projects completed in the Idaho Power service territory.
The verified savings for the measure is 5,878 kWh with a realization rate of 44.40%, as displayed in
Table 3-19. The realization rates verified from the sample were used to extrapolate savings to the
population. The Evaluators applied the measure-level realization rates to the population for each
measure. The realization rate for the electric savings in the evaporative cooler measures deviate from
100% due to the application of a NTG ratio to each evaporative cooler project. The New Mexico TRM
indicates that a NTG ratio indicating the proportion of projects which had installed the evaporative
cooler to replace refrigerated air must be applied to this deemed savings value, and the Evaluators
interpreted this NTG as consistent with RTF practices of establishing a market practice baseline to
address NTG matters.
For the NTG ratio for evaporative coolers, 2 of the 9 customers had responded to the survey. One of the
respondents (50%) had indicated that the evaporative cooler was replacing refrigerated air (an A/C unit).
Due to low response rate, the Evaluators chose to conduct a literature review and selected the NTG
ratio of 44.4% calculated for Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) provided in the PNM 2015
impact evaluation in which a comprehensive survey effort was performed to estimate NTG for
evaporative coolers. This survey effort yielded 90% confidence and ±8.3% sample precision for the
evaporative cooler channel in PNM’s Stay Cool Program. The Evaluators selected this NTG because the
results are similar to IPC survey responses, the value summarizes a large study that met 90/10 precision
for the PNM impact evaluation, and the 44.40% value represents the same service area in which the
impact savings values are sourced from.
This NTG factor led to the lowered realization rate for the evaporative cooler measures in the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and therefore did not affect the
verified savings realization rates. The Evaluators recommend IPC apply this NTG adjustment factor when
calculating claimed savings for future program years. The Evaluators also recommend including plans to
update this NTG adjustment factor in future evaluation efforts.

13 https://www.nm-prc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/New-Mexico-TRM-2021-Final-03-09-2021.pdf

Evaluation Report 53

3.2.4.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators did not estimate total non-energy impacts or benefits for evaporative coolers.
3.2.5 Electronically Commutated Motors
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to install electronically commutated
motors to increase home’s energy efficiency. Customers receive incentives after installation and after
submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-21 summarizes the electronically commutated motor
measure offered under this program.
Table 3-21: Electronically Commutated Motors Measures
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
Electronically Commutated Motors
A highly efficient alternative to
the traditional permanent split
capacitor motor (PSC).
IDL Workpaper
Table 3-22 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the measure.
Table 3-22: Electronically Commutated Motors Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Electronically Commutated Motors 51 145,921 165,074 113.13%
The electronically commutated motor measure displayed verified savings of 166,074 kWh with a
realization rate of 113.13% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the
measure-specific impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the
electronically commutated motors in the section below.
3.2.5.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the
electronically commutated motor measure offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the
electronically commutated motor measures. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to
cross-verify tracking data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected 13 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators note that the required information was validated by IPC employees prior to providing
incentives to the customer. The Evaluators found the electronically commutated motor rebate
application forms for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather all
required information to claim savings for the measure. However, the Evaluators found many of the
program application documents submitted by customers to be incomplete from the customer. IPC staff
retroactively fill in information after following up with the customer. However, there were a few cases
where some components of the application were not present.
The Evaluators found two of the ECM documents displayed model numbers that were unable to be
verified using provided equipment details. One application did not submit a model number and all but

Evaluation Report 54

one of the rebates did not document equipment serial numbers. This makes verification of model
number and associated CFM rate difficult. One rebate did not collect home square footage or year built.
The Evaluators note that the IPC tracking database does not consistently reflect the verified equipment
efficiency values (horsepower). The Evaluators recommend IPC work to improve methods for verifying
collecting web and mail-in rebate application information to reconcile the database.
3.2.5.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of electronically commutated motor rebate participant customers to survey
for simple verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed electronically commutated motor still properly functioning?
Table 3-23 displays the ISRs for the electronically commutated motor measure for Idaho and Oregon
territory combined.
Table 3-23: Electronically Commutated Motors Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Electronically Commutated
Motor 51 2 2 100%
*These ISRs did not meet 90/10 precision, however, the Evaluators applied a 100% ISR to each of the ECM projects
All survey respondents for each ECM measure described equipment to be currently functioning, leading
to a 100% ISR. Although the survey responses did not meet 90/10 precision for the population of ECM
measures, The Evaluators applied 100% ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each project.
No further adjustments were required during the impact evaluation.
3.2.5.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the electronically
commutated motor measure. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the savings values derived from the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab workpaper on Electronically Commutated Motors along with
verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure. The Evaluators employed the
following workbook to calculate verified savings for the measure:
◼ University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Electronically Commutated Motors Literature Review,
December 31, 2014.
The Evaluators reviewed the literature review workpaper and confirmed that savings values are
applicable to the ECM projects completed Idaho Power service territory. Therefore, the Evaluators
utilized the savings calculations derived from the Integrated Design Lab literature review workpaper for
the electronically commutated motors projects completed in the Idaho Power service territory.

Evaluation Report 55

The verified savings for the measure is 165,074 kWh with a realization rate of 113.13% as displayed in
Table 3-22. The realization rate for the electric savings in the ECM measures deviate from 100% due to
the correction of ECM horsepower connection values for four projects. The realization rates verified
from the sample were used to extrapolate savings to the population. The Evaluators applied the
measure-level realization rates to the population for each measure.
The results of the document verification led to high realization rate for the electronically commutated
motor measures in the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was
100% and therefore did not affect the verified savings realization rates.
3.2.5.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators did not estimate total non-energy impacts or benefits for electronically commutated
motors.
3.2.6 Heat Pump Water Heater
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to upgrade their existing electric water
heater with a high efficiency heat pump water heater. Customers receive incentives after installation
and after submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-24 summarizes the heat pump water heater
measure offered under this program.
Table 3-24: Heat Pump Water Heater Measures
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Heat Pump Water Heater A highly efficient alternative to a traditional electric
resistance storage water heater RTF UES
Table 3-25 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the heat pump water heater.
Table 3-25: Heat Pump Water Heater Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Heat Pump Water Heater 26 40,768 32,456 79.61%
The heat pump water heater measure displayed verified savings of 32,456 kWh with a realization rate of
79.61% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the heat pump water heater
measure in the section below.
3.2.6.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the heat
pump water heater measures offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the heat pump
water heater measures. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking
data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.

Evaluation Report 56

The Evaluators selected 11 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators found all program application documents submitted by customers to be complete from the
customer. The Evaluators found the heat pump water heater rebate application forms for the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather most required information to claim savings
for the measure through the RTF measure specifications. The rebate applications do not currently collect
information on whether the exhaust air is ducted to the outside, as required by the RTF measure
specifications. The Evaluators recommend adding a field in the rebate application form to account for
this detail for each project.
All 11 rebate documents were provided with associated AHRI documents for the project, and all 11
projects qualified for RTF savings for heat pump water heaters. The Evaluators found four of the 11
projects had documented incorrect heat pump water heater location in the database. The Evaluators
also found one project in which Heating Zone was inaccurately categorized. The Evaluators corrected
equipment location and Heating Zone indicated from rebate documentation and home zip code. The
Evaluators also note that four of the 11 rebates did not have equipment tier efficiency documented. The
Evaluators verified equipment tier efficiency using the NEEA HPWH Tier database14 and found consistent
values with the database.
The Evaluators note that the IPC tracking database does not consistently reflect the same values found
in the mail-in rebate applications documents, such as home type and water heater location described
above. The Evaluators recommend IPC work to improve methods for collecting web and mail-in rebate
application information to reconcile the database.
3.2.6.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of heat pump water heater rebate participant customers to survey for
simple verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed heat pump water heater still properly functioning?
Table 3-26 displays the ISRs for the heat pump water heater measures for Idaho and Oregon territory
combined.
Table 3-26: Heat Pump Water Heater Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Heat pump water heater 26 8 8 100%
*These ISRs did not meet 90/10 precision, however, the Evaluators applied a 100% ISR to each of the HPWH measures
All survey respondents for each heat pump water heater measure described equipment to be currently
functioning, leading to a 100% ISR. Although the survey responses did not meet 90/10 precision for the

14 https://neea.org/img/documents/HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf

Evaluation Report 57

population of HPWH measures, The Evaluators applied 100% ISRs to each rebate to quantify verified
savings for each project.
3.2.6.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the heat pump water
heater measures. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the heat pump
water heater measure along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this
measure. The Evaluators employed the following RTF workbook to calculate verified savings for the
measure:
◼ ResHPWH_v4_2
The verified savings for the measure is 32,456 kWh with a realization rate of 79.61%, as displayed in
Table 3-25. The realization rates verified from the sample were used to extrapolate savings to the
population. The Evaluators applied the measure-level realization rates to the population for each
measure. The realization rate for the electric savings in the heat pump water heater measures deviate
from 100% due to the correction of referenced RTF savings for each project. The expected savings values
for each project in the IPC tracking database had included the water heating component and cooling
interactive effects component but had unintentionally left out the heating interactive component
represented in the RTF workbook. When including the heating interactive component, project-level
savings decreases for heat pump water heaters. The Evaluators also adjusted savings for four projects in
which the location of the heat pump water heater was indicated to be in a different location than that
used to calculate expected project savings. The Evaluators also rounded each project’s savings to the
nearest full kWh, as recommended when using the RTF UES values.
These changes led to the lowered realization rate for the heat pump water heater measures in the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and therefore did
not affect the verified savings realization rates.
3.2.6.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators also verified total non-energy impacts and benefits derived from the RTF workbook for
the heat pump water heater measures. These values were derived from values provided in the RTF
workbooks under CO2 reductions over expected measure life and present value total societal benefits.
The Evaluators provide a summary of the results in the table below.
Table 3-27: Heat Pump Water Heater Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits

Measure
C02
Reduction
(Tons Over
Expected
Measure Life)
Escalated
NEBs ($/yr)
Heat pump water heater 208.24 $3,117.47

Evaluation Report 58

3.2.7 Open Loop Heat Pumps
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to upgrade their existing electric, or
oil/propane heating equipment with high efficiency open loop (water source) heat pump. Customers
receive incentives after installation and after submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-28
summarizes the open loop heat pump measure offered under this program.
Table 3-28: Open Loop Heat Pump Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump:
3.5 COP New construction high efficiency open loop heat pump RTF UES
Electric Heating System to Open Loop
Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP
Conversion from electric heating system to high
efficiency open loop heat pump RTF UES
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open
Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5
COP
Conversion from oil/propane heating system to high
efficiency open loop heat pump RTF UES
Table 3-29 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the open loop heat pump measure.
Table 3-29: Open Loop Heat Pump Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump:
3.5 COP 3 23,444 23,442 99.99%
Electric Heating System to Open Loop
Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 1 7,054 7,054 100.00%
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open
Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5
COP
2 14,108 15,622 110.73%
Total 6 44,607 46,118 103.39%
The open loop heat pump measures displayed verified savings of 46,118 kWh with a realization rate of
103.39% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the open loop heat pump
measures in the section below.
3.2.7.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the open
loop heat pump measures offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the open loop
heat pump measures. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking
data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected six rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators found all program application documents submitted by customers to be complete from the
customer. The Evaluators found the open loop heat pump rebate application forms for the Heating &

Evaluation Report 59

Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather most required information to claim savings
for the measure through the RTF measure specifications. The rebate applications do not currently collect
information on whether the existing water heater is an electric tank without a desuperheater, as
required by the RTF measure specifications. The Evaluators recommend adding a field in the rebate
application form to account for the desuperheater requirement for each project. In addition, although
the program application includes a field to collect home square footage, five of the six rebate
applications did not document home square footage.
All six rebate documents were provided with associated AHRI documents for the project, and all 6
projects qualified for RTF savings for open loop heat pumps. The Evaluators found both of the
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump projects to have central A/C
installed at the home, however, the database documented these projects as having no central A/C. In
addition, all project savings values were rounded to the nearest full kWh, as portrayed in the RTF
workbooks. These two changes led to deviations from 100% realization rate for the measures.
3.2.7.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of open loop heat pump rebate participant customers to survey for simple
verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed heat pump still properly functioning?
Table 3-30 displays the ISRs for each of the open loop heat pump measures for Idaho and Oregon
territory combined.
Table 3-30: Open Loop Heat Pump Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Open loop heat pumps 6 0 0 N/A
*These ISRs did not meet 90/10 precision, however, the Evaluators applied a 100% ISR to each of the DHP measures
Of the 6 completed projects, none of the customers responded to the surveys. The Evaluators applied an
assumed 100% ISR to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each project.
3.2.7.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the open loop heat
pump measures. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the open loop heat
pump measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure. The
Evaluators employed the following RTF workbook to calculate verified savings for the measure:
◼ ResGSHP_v2_7

Evaluation Report 60

The verified savings for the measure is 46,118 kWh with a realization rate of 103.39%, as displayed in
Table 3-29. The realization rate for the electric savings in the open loop heat pump measures deviate
from 100% due to the correction of referenced RTF savings for two open loop heat pump conversion
projects. The expected savings values for each project in the IPC tracking database had incorrectly
identified the home’s existing cooling type. The Evaluators updated these project savings based on
findings from document verification, leading to 111% realization rate for these two projects. The
Evaluators also rounded each project’s savings to the nearest full kWh, as recommended when using the
RTF UES values.
These changes led to the larger than 100% realization rate for the open loop heat pump measures in the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and therefore did
not affect the verified savings realization rates.
3.2.7.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators also verified total non-energy impacts and benefits derived from the RTF workbook for
the open loop heat pump measures. These values were derived from values provided in the RTF
workbooks under CO2 reductions over expected measure life and present value total societal benefits.
The Evaluators provide a summary of the results in the table below.
Table 3-31: Open Loop Heat Pump Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits

3.2.8 Smart Thermostats
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to install a connected thermostat to
increase home’s energy efficiency. Customers receive incentives after installation and after submitting a
completed rebate form. In 2020, IPC began allowing smart thermostat rebates for self-installed
thermostats. Prior to this, all rebated smart thermostats must have been contractor-installed. The
Evaluators summarize savings for each installation type. Table 3-32 summarizes the smart thermostat
measure offered under this program.
Measure
C02
Reduction
(Tons Over
Expected
Measure Life)
Escalated
NEBs ($/yr)
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump:
3.5 COP 256.50 $3,815.31
Electric Heating System to Open Loop
Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP N/A N/A
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open
Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP N/A N/A
Total 256.50 $3,815.31

Evaluation Report 61

Table 3-32: Smart Thermostat Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Smart Thermostat - Self Installed Self-installed connected thermostat replacing non-
qualifying thermostat RTF UES
Smart Thermostat - Contractor
Installed
Contractor-installed connected thermostat replacing
non-qualifying thermostat RTF UES
Table 3-33 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the smart thermostat.
Table 3-33: Smart Thermostat Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Smart Thermostat - Self Installed 240 127,114 106,073 83.45%
Smart Thermostat - Contractor
Installed 152 100,152 92,382 92.24%
Total 392 227,267 198,455 87.32%
The smart thermostat measures displayed verified savings of 198,455 kWh with a realization rate of
87.32% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the smart thermostat
measures in the section below.
3.2.8.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the smart
thermostat measures offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the smart
thermostat measures. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking
data inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected 24 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators note that the required information was validated by IPC employees prior to providing
incentives to the customer. The Evaluators found many of the program application documents
submitted by customers to be incomplete from the customer. IPC staff retroactively fill in information
after following up with the customer. The information most commonly omitted from the customer
consist of the housing type (single-family vs. manufactured home), home vintage, home square footage,
and existing cooling type.
The Evaluators found the smart thermostat rebate application forms for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program had provided questions to gather most required information to claim savings for the measure
through the RTF measure specifications. The rebate applications do not currently collect information on
whether the smart thermostat is replacing another qualified smart thermostat, as required by the RTF
measure specifications. The Evaluators recommend adding a field in the rebate application form to
account for each of these requirements for each project.

Evaluation Report 62

A small portion of rebates do not correctly document smart thermostat model number (10%) or serial
number (15%), which made verification of equipment qualification difficult for 3% of rebates. The
Evaluators also verified that 25 of the 392 smart thermostat models did not meet RTF measure
specification (6%). These thermostats lacked eligibility for program savings due to the lack of occupancy
detection and/or geofencing capabilities. Of the 392 smart thermostats, 12 were unable to be verified as
eligible due to missing information on model details (3%). The remaining smart thermostats were
verified to qualify for RTF measure savings (91%). The thermostats that were verified to fail eligibility
requirements were removed from verified savings (25 smart thermostat projects).
In addition, the connected thermostat savings for three rebates were removed due to customer
participation in air source heat pump commissioning, controls, and sizing savings, as required by the RTF
measure specifications. These findings led to deviations from 100% realization rate for the smart
thermostat measures.
3.2.8.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of smart thermostat rebate participant customers to survey for simple
verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed smart thermostat still properly functioning?
Table 3-34 displays the ISRs for each of the smart thermostat measures for Idaho and Oregon territory
combined.
Table 3-34: Smart Thermostat Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Smart Thermostat 392 74 74 100%
Of the 392 completed projects, 74 of the customers responded to the surveys and all 74 respondents
indicated the smart thermostat is still installed and functioning. The 74 responses for this measure met
the measure-level requirements for 7.24% precision at the 90% confidence interval for the program. The
Evaluators applied this 100% ISR to each rebate to quantify verified savings for each project.
3.2.8.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the smart thermostat
measures. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the connected
thermostat measures along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this
measure. The Evaluators employed the following RTF workbook to calculate verified savings for the
measure:
◼ ResConnectedTstats_v1.3

Evaluation Report 63

The verified savings for the measure is 198,455 kWh with a realization rate of 87.32%, as displayed in
Table 3-33. The realization rate for the electric savings in the smart thermostat measures deviate from
100% due to eligibility requirements specified by the RTF workbook. The RTF requires the connected
thermostat have occupancy sensor and/or geofencing capabilities to align with RTF-calculated UES
values. In addition, the Evaluators removed savings for projects in which the home also was verified to
receive air source heat pump commissioning, controls, and sizing savings through the RTF. The
Evaluators also rounded each project’s savings to the nearest full kWh, as recommended when using the
RTF UES values.
These changes led to the lower than 100% realization rate for the smart thermostat measures in the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and therefore did
not affect the verified savings realization rates.
3.2.8.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators also verified total non-energy impacts and benefits derived from the RTF workbook for
the smart thermostat measures. These values were derived from values provided in the RTF workbooks
under CO2 reductions over expected measure life and present value total societal benefits. The
Evaluators provide a summary of the results in the table below.
Table 3-35: Smart Thermostat Non-Energy Impacts & Benefits

3.2.9 Whole House Fans
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program encourages customers to install a whole house fan to reduce
the use of central A/C use and increase home energy efficiency. Customers receive incentives after
installation and after submitting a completed rebate form. Table 3-36 summarizes the whole house fan
measure offered under this program.
Measure
C02
Reduction
(Tons Over
Expected
Measure Life)
Escalated
NEBs ($/yr)
Smart Thermostat - Self Installed 1,159.70 $19,084.75
Smart Thermostat - Contractor Installed 986.90 $16,132.54
Total 2,146.60 $35,217.29

Evaluation Report 64

Table 3-36: Whole House Fan Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Whole House Fans
A high-volume fan that cools a home in the evening
and early morning hours, allowing the air conditioner
to be manually turned off
IDL
Workpaper
Table 3-37 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the whole house fan measure.
Table 3-37: Whole House Fan Verified Electric Savings
Measure PY2020
Participation
Expected
Savings
Verified
Savings
Realization
Rate
Whole House Fans 129 57,482 61,800 107.51%
The whole house fan measure displayed verified savings of 61,800 kWh with a realization rate of
107.51% against the expected savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific
impact analysis activities, results, conclusions, and recommendations for the whole house fans in the
sections below.
3.2.9.1 Database Review & Document Verification
This section describes the Evaluator’s database review and document verification findings for the whole
house fans measure offered under the program.
Before conducting the impact analysis, the Evaluators conducted a database review for the whole house
fan measures. The Evaluators selected a subset of rebate applications to cross-verify tracking data
inputs, summarized in Section 2.2.2.1.
The Evaluators selected 15 rebates to review program application documentation and rebate forms. The
Evaluators note that the required information was validated by IPC employees prior to providing
incentives to the customer. The Evaluators found the whole house fan rebate application forms for the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program had provided questions to gather most of the required
information to claim savings for the measure through the RTF measure specifications. The rebate
applications had lacked a field which confirms whether the whole house fan was installed to
manufacturer settings. The Evaluators recommend IPC add a field to the rebate application documents
to confirm this detail.
The Evaluators found many of the program application documents submitted by customers to be
incomplete from the customer; however, IPC staff retroactively fill in information after following up with
the customer.
The Evaluators found one of the WHF documents did not document equipment serial number. This
made verifying equipment eligibility difficult. In addition, the Evaluators found two rebates which had
indicated unrealistically large home square footage values. The Evaluators corrected these two values
using publicly available data for these households through Zillow.com. In addition, the Evaluators had
corrected the existing cooling type for one of the sampled rebates in which project documentation
lacked home cooling type.

Evaluation Report 65

The Evaluators recommend ensuring the collected information for these rebates is consistent between
the database and the rebate documents provided for each project. In addition, the Evaluators
recommend requiring complete information filled detailing the equipment manufacturer, model
number, and serial number for each project.
3.2.9.2 Verification Surveys
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. The Evaluators
randomly selected a subset of whole house fan rebate participant customers to survey for simple
verification of installed measure. The Evaluators included questions such as:
◼ Is the newly installed whole house fan still properly functioning?
Table 3-38 displays the ISRs for the whole house fan measure for Idaho and Oregon territory combined.
Table 3-38: Whole House Fan Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Number of
Rebates
Number of
Survey
Completes
Number of
Surveys
Indicating
Measure is
Functioning
In-Service Rate
Whole House Fan 129 22 22 100%
All survey respondents for each WHF measure described equipment to be currently functioning, leading
to a 100% ISR. The 22 responses for this measure met the measure-level requirements to achieve 7.24%
precision at the 90% confidence interval. The Evaluators applied 100% ISRs to each rebate to quantify
verified savings for each project. No further adjustments were required during the impact evaluation.
3.2.9.3 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the whole house fan
measure. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the savings values derived from the University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab workpaper on Whole House Fans along with verified tracking data to estimate net
program savings for this measure. The Evaluators employed the following workpaper to calculate
verified savings for the measure:
◼ Integrated Design Lab (IDL) at University of Idaho, 2015 Task #9: Technical Assistance for Whole
House Fan Report (October 14, 2015)
The Evaluators reviewed the workpaper and confirmed that results of the analysis presented are
applicable to the WHF projects completed Idaho Power service territory. Therefore, the Evaluators
utilized the savings calculations derived from the Integrated Design Lab literature review workpaper for
the whole house fans completed in the Idaho Power service territory.
The Evaluators recommend utilizing the modeling results presented in the paper. However, the
Evaluators recommend applying the savings values presented in the paper differently than the current
method Idaho Power employs.

Evaluation Report 66

The Evaluators adjusted the application of the savings represented in the IDL workpaper. Idaho Power
used the constant 445.6 kWh savings per WHF. The calculation behind this value is unclear; however,
The Evaluators utilized the IDL modeling results for each the one-story and two-story constructions, for
each the 1 CFM/SQFT and 2 CFM/SQFT model results. The Evaluators calculated a kWh saved/SQFT
value for each of the following scenarios:
◼ One story home with whole house fan displaying 1 CFM/SQFT
◼ One story home with whole house fan displaying 2 CFM/SQFT
◼ Two story home with whole house fan displaying 1 CFM/SQFT
◼ Two story home with whole house fan displaying 2 CFM/SQFT
The Evaluators applied the appropriate kWh/SQFT values to each of the sampled rebates. The verified
savings for the measure is 165,074 kWh with a realization rate of 113.13% as displayed in Table 3-37.
The realization rates verified from the sample were used to extrapolate savings to the population. The
Evaluators applied the measure-level realization rates to the population for each measure. The
realization rate for the electric savings in the WHF measures deviate from 100% due to the adjustment
of application of savings from the IDL workpaper. The ISRs for each of the measures was 100% and
therefore did not affect the verified savings realization rates. No further adjustments were conducted
for this measure.
3.2.9.4 Non-Energy Impacts & Non-Energy Benefits
The Evaluators did not estimate total non-energy impacts or benefits for whole house fans.
4. Process Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed a process evaluation on Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.
The following sections summarize findings for the process evaluation in the Idaho and Oregon service
territory.
4.1 Program Design and Operations
Idaho Power’s Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program provides residents in Idaho Power’s service area
rebates for purchasing and properly installing a variety of energy efficient heating and cooling
equipment and services. The program measures are ductless heat pumps, open-loop water-source heat
pumps, air-source heat pumps, duct sealing, electronically commutated motors, evaporative coolers,
heat pump water heaters, smart thermostats, and whole house fans.
Residential customers must use a licensed, and Idaho power approved, participating contractors for all
installs other than evaporative coolers and smart thermostats. Residents receive incentives for all
program measures, while participating contractors receive a stipend for ductless heat pumps, ducted
air-source heat pumps, ducted open-loop water-source heat pumps, and duct sealing.
All Idaho Power customers with electrically heated homes are eligible to participate, however program
staff target those homes that are particularly high energy users. Program goals are based off kWh
savings. Idaho Power uses regional deemed savings values from the RTF to define the per-unit savings.

Evaluation Report 67

Although Idaho Power staff work closely with a Honeywell representative who helps with the
administrative side of program and onsite verifications, the program is self-implemented.
4.1.1 Program Incentive Design
Since the program’s inception in 2007, program staff have expanded measures to provide more
opportunities for engagement. Table 4-1 below provides an overview of the measures, participation,
and their calculated expected savings. When deciding on new measures, staff use data from the RTF
savings workbook, market readiness, and research pilots. No new measures were added in 2021.
Table 4-1: List of Program Measures, Expected Savings, Incentive Dollars, and Acquisition Cost
Measure Number of
Projects
Expected
Savings (kWh)
Incentive
Dollars
Acquisition
Cost
Smart thermostat 392 227,267 $29,389.69 $0.13
Ductless heat pump 242 556,279 $183,000.00 $0.33
Whole house fan 129 57,482 $25,800.00 $0.45
Air source heat pump (retrofit - electric
resistance replacement) 88 658,487 $69,850.00 $0.11
Air source heat pump (retrofit - heat pump
replacement) 51 27,359 $12,750.00 $0.47
Electronically commutated motor 51 145,921 $2,550.00 $0.02
Heat pump water heater 26 40,768 $7,800.00 $0.19
Air source heat pump (new construction) 14 10,432 $5,600.00 $0.54
Evaporative cooler 9 13,239 $1,350.00 $0.10
Air source heat pump (retrofit - oil/propane
replacement) 8 56,381 $3,200.00 $0.06
Open loop heat pump (new construction) 3 23,444 $3,000.00 $0.13
Open loop heat pump (retrofit -
oil/propane replacement) 2 14,108 $2,000.00 $0.14
Duct sealing 1 848 $350.00 $0.41
Open loop heat pump (retrofit - electric
resistance replacement) 1 7,054 $1,000.00 $0.14
4.1.2 Participation by Region
Table 4-2 summarizes the distribution of participation by IPC regions. The geographic distribution of
participants is also shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.
Table 4-2: Participation by Region
State Region Number of
Participants
Expected
Savings (kWh) Incentive Dollars
ID Canyon 141 336,832.95 $52,819.32
ID Capital 472 717,831.36 $138,646.28
ID Eastern 56 133,772.47 $28,175.00
ID Southern 114 255,885.84 $51,449.09
ID Western 119 337,081.18 $65,075.00
OR Western 16 57,664.56 $11,475.00

Evaluation Report 68

Figure 4-1: Distribution of Participants (Idaho)

Evaluation Report 69

Figure 4-2: Distribution of Participants (Oregon)

4.1.3 Program Marketing and Outreach
The program relies heavily on direct mailings, bill inserts, and friend/family referral, as well as social
media. Although Idaho Power does not provide official co-branding materials to participating
contractors, participating contractors are listed on the website and staff encourage them to mention the
program and their affiliation in their own marketing materials.
Program staff noted that marketing is key challenge – that it is difficult to reach the right person, at the
right time, with the right message, in a media environment that places many competing demands on
customers’ attention.
While many of the measures are contractor driven, some additional opportunities to encourage to
customers to install qualifying measures at the right time include the following.
◼ Use of search-based advertisement. Customers searching for information on smart
thermostats, evaporative coolers, and whole house fans may be effectively reach through
search ads.
◼ Promote smart thermostat installations during heat pump replacements. Approximately half
of the air source heat pumps installed in 2020 included a smart thermostat. While that is a
sizable share, there may be additional opportunities to promote smart thermostats during these
installations.

Evaluation Report 70

4.1.4 Trade Ally Network and Management
Program staff do not limit the number of participating contractors allowed in the network; however
participating contractors must meet a variety of requirements to qualify. In addition to being licensed
and insured, participating contractors must complete a training to ensure they understand the technical
and process requirements of the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program, as well as purchase the air
supply flow tester kit necessary for measurement and verification. Program staff tailor the training to
meet the needs and interests of the participating contractor; in the past, trainings were offered to
multiple contractors at a time, but due to COVID precautions, staff now meet with interested
contractors individually.
In general, 10-12 new contractors join each year, however due to turnover from existing contractors,
the network rarely exceeds 100 contractors. When recruiting new contractors, staff focus on contractors
who are committed to the program; they do not want “one hit wonders” who are only looking to
become involved to satisfy one customer. Through sit down meetings and phone calls, program staff are
able to ascertain contractors’ motivations and determine if they are a good fit for the program.
As of December 2021, Idaho Power had 89 contractors on their list of approved contractors. Program
staff categorize contractors based on engagement into three categories: top performers, dabblers, and
non-participants (Table 4-3).
Table 4-3: Participating Contractor Engagement
Contractor Participation Category Number of Contractors
Top Performers (4+ jobs/year) 24
Dabblers (1-3 jobs/year) 31
Non-Participants (0 jobs/year) 34

Once contractors become an official “Participating Contractor” they are required to complete at least
one qualified install per year to remain active; exceptions were made in 2020 and 2021 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Program staff stay in touch with contractors throughout the year through various
informal channels, such as phone calls or emails, as well as in-person check-ins and meetings. Staff do
not send out regular newsletters or email blasts. In the past, staff had on the ground account
representatives who helped with contractor visits and check-ins; this assistance has decreased over the
years due to capacity issues.
4.1.5 Quality control practices
Typically, program staff, with help from Honeywell, conduct on site verifications for 10% of equipment
installed. In response to the pandemic, staff reduced verification requirements to 5% of total installs and
switched to virtual verifications, rather than in person. Instead of randomly choosing which installs to
verify, program staff pick installs based on install type and contractor in an attempt to ensure all
contractors are meeting codes and requirements.
4.2 Contractor Interview Findings
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s findings of the contractor interview process evaluation efforts.

Evaluation Report 71

4.2.1 Respondent Overview and Background
The 19 respondents represented all regions served by IPC, most were owners or presidents of their
company, and the majority reported being part of the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program for “many
years” or “since inception” (Table 4-4).
Table 4-4: Respondent Summary
Respondent 2020 Activity Region
Interview
Completion
Status
Respondent Type Years with
Program
Resp10 Non-part. Capital Complete Owner/Pres. Don’t know
Resp12 Dabbler Capital Complete Owner/Pres. 4
Resp13 Non-part. Capital Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp17 Top performer Capital Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp18 Top performer Capital Partial Office Manager 2
Resp19 Dabbler Capital Partial Office Manager 3
Resp6 Top performer Canyon Complete Owner/Pres. 3
Resp7 Top performer Canyon Complete Owner/Pres. 3
Resp8 Top performer Canyon Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp11 Dabbler Canyon Complete Technician 4
Resp14 Top performer Canyon Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp2 Non part. Southern Complete Owner/Pres. 2
Resp3 Dabbler Southern Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp4 Non part. Southern Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp9 Dabbler Southern Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp15 Non part. Southern Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp16 Dabbler Southern Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp1 Top performer Eastern Complete Owner/Pres. 5 or more
Resp5 Non part. Eastern Complete Technician 5 or more
4.2.2 Program Effectiveness
To assess the effectiveness of the program for contractors, we asked respondents about their motivations
to join the program and compared that to what they told us about any benefits they may have realized
from being in the program.
4.2.2.1 Program Awareness and Motivation
Many contractors reported person-to-person outreach from IPC representatives about the program
was critical to them joining the program. Six respondents specified, unprompted by the interviewer,
that they initially became aware of the program because of outreach by an IPC representative. All six
indicated they were thankful to receive this outreach from IPC and joined the program because of this
outreach efforts. Furthermore, all six indicated this outreach had happened at least three years ago.
Respondents reported a variety of motivations for participating in the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
Program. Of the 18 contractors that reported on why their firm became an approved contractor in the
program, the majority (15) joined to better serve customers by helping the customer lower their cost of
new equipment and installation. Four contractors reported that being part of the program keeps them

Evaluation Report 72

competitive with other contractors in the region. As one respondent stated, “If I cannot offer the
program, [the customer] will go somewhere else.” Three respondents noted positive experiences with
IPC in the past which motivated them to participate in this program. Two respondents were enthusiastic
supporters of efficient technologies like heat pumps and one reported that the program ensures
contractors are installing equipment to the efficiency standards required by code. According to this
respondent, local permit officials approve HVAC permits for health and safety issues, but only the IPC
program verifies if the contractor installed the equipment to run as efficiently as possible (Table 4-5).
Table 4-5: Contractor Motivations to be Approved Contractor
Motivation Count
Opportunity to better serve customers 15
Keeps firm competitive with other contractors 4
Positive experience with past IPC programs 3
Support heat pump technology and using efficient equipment 2
Program ensures contractors are installing equipment to efficiency standards 1
4.2.2.2 Program Benefits
The program offerings often convince customers to do projects they may not have otherwise done,
and the program benefited contractors in other ways, too. Ten respondents reported some specific
benefits they have received from being part of the program.
◼ Seven reported the program incentives convince “fence sitters” to do a project and this has led
to additional business for the contractor.
◼ Three reported being listed as an approved contractor on the IPC website as an approved
contractor brought them additional business. One of these respondents specified that being an
approved contractor provides their firm credibility in the marketplace.
◼ Three reported that the program allowed them to become comfortable selling and installing
newer heat pump technologies. One of these respondents noted that developing this comfort
with newer technologies enabled their firm to develop a lucrative business line selling and
installing ductless heat pumps.
4.2.3 Program Satisfaction
Respondents reported irregular communications with IPC staff, and they mostly discussed project
eligibility questions or clarifying application details. Fifteen of the respondents indicated having some
type of communication with IPC staff in the last year. Of those, 11 reported the communications were
typically clarification questions from IPC staff about a submitted application. For example, an incentive
application may have been missing a piece of data and the staff would call the contractor to get that
data. Additionally, eight respondents reported reaching out to IPC staff with project eligibility questions.
For example, one contractor reported asking staff about potential program opportunities for a home
that was heated exclusively by wood. Most respondents reported communicating with IPC staff four
times a year or less with only two respondents reporting regular or monthly communications with IPC
staff.
In almost all cases, respondents appreciated their contact with IPC staff. All but one respondent
expressed high satisfaction with their communication with staff. Respondents stated things like “[Staff

Evaluation Report 73

Person] is really good. They are really responsive and get back [to me] right away”. Another respondent
appreciated the timeline flexibility the IPC staff extended to him when he was experiencing staffing
issues that led to delays in submitting program paperwork. The one dissatisfied respondent stated he
reached out to staff three times in 2021 about a project eligibility question but never heard back.
Nine respondents reported receiving training from IPC and almost all these respondents stated they
took the training at least several years ago. Six of the respondents described the training as technical
(e.g., duct blasting, HRV systems) and four described the training as program related (e.g., application
requirements). All these respondents reported not taking an IPC sponsored training in at least the last
two years.
4.2.4 Barriers to Program Participation and Suggestions for Improvement
Eleven respondents specified barriers that inhibit program participation and they offered suggestions for
ways to improve the program and overcome some of these barriers (Table 4-6).
Table 4-6: Barriers to Program Participation and Suggestions for Improvement
Respon.
Barriers Suggestions for Improvement
20
2

0
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y

L
e
v
e
l

No
t

e
n
o
u
g
h

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r

cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s

un
a
w
a
r
e

o
f
pr
o
g
r
a
m

No
t

e
n
o
u
g
h

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r

co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s

Pr
o
g
r
a
m

n
o
t

u
s
i
n
g

s
a
m
e

r
u
l
e
s

a
s

ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g

u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

n
o
t

a
w
a
r
e

o
f

h
e
a
t

p
u
m
p

be
n
e
f
i
t
s

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

IP
C
st
a
f
f

In
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
/
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

o
p
t
i
o
n
s

fo
r

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

Ed
u
c
a
t
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
b
o
u
t

h
e
a
t

p
u
m
p

be
n
e
f
i
t
s

Of
f
e
r

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r

du
c
t
l
e
s
s

h
e
a
t

p
u
m
p

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

Resp1 Top perfor. ✓ ✓ ✓
Resp14 Top perfor. ✓
Resp16 Dabbler ✓ ✓ ✓
Resp3 Dabbler ✓ ✓
Resp19 Dabbler ✓ ✓
Resp11 Dabbler ✓ ✓
Resp4 Non-part. ✓ ✓
Resp5 Non-part. ✓
Resp13 Non-part. ✓ ✓ ✓
Resp2 Non-part. ✓
Resp15 Non-part. ✓ ✓
Total 4 3 1 1 1 5 4 3 1

Respondents provided the following details about the barriers.

Evaluation Report 74

◼ Four respondents reported the financial incentives for customers are not enough to convince
some customers to act. According to these respondents, the $250 incentive for replacing an
existing ducted heat pump with a new efficient unit is not enough to convince a customer to act.
One of these respondents also stated that a lack of financing options for customers was a barrier
to participation.
◼ Three contractors explicitly stated they were unaware of many of the details of the program
which keeps them from recommending it to customers. For example, one contractor stated,
“my sales staff will be afraid to mention the program to a client because we are afraid of getting
something wrong with the program.”
◼ One respondent stated that the program needs to offer more money to contractors to
complete applications. This respondent appreciated the existing contractor incentive for
completing ducted heat pump applications, but they did not specify a higher amount that would
be more amenable.
◼ One respondent that works in multiple electric utility territories reported that a neighboring
utility has a lower HSPF threshold for heat pumps (8.2) in their program. According to this
respondent, the differences in program requirements can be difficult for them to navigate.
◼ One respondent reported that customers are not aware of heat pumps and their benefits.
According to this respondent, the unfamiliarity with heat pumps in the marketplace makes
selling all kinds of heat pumps more difficult.
Respondents provided four suggestions for overcoming these barriers and improving the program.
◼ Almost half of those that provided suggestions reported they would like to see more
interactions with program staff and would like more information about the program in general.
One of these respondents specified wanting more information about the program and ducted
heat pumps. This respondent was not sure they were qualified to install ducted units through
the program.
◼ Four respondents reported the program should increase incentive amounts, especially the $250
incentive for replacing existing ducted heat pumps with newer more efficient ducted units. One
would also like to see the program offer good financing terms for customers to do program
qualified work.
◼ Three respondents reported that the program could increase the public’s awareness of the
program specifically, and the benefits of heat pumps in general. One respondent specified that
they think bill inserts about the program could be included in customer bills more often.
◼ One contractor would like to see incentives for contractors that complete ductless installations,
like what the program offers contractors that complete ducted installations.

4.2.5 Installation Procedures and Equipment for Program vs. Non-Program
Ducted Heat Pump Projects
To determine if the performance tested comfort standards (PTCS) required for ducted heat pump
installations are an impediment to contractors completing more projects through the program, we

Evaluation Report 75

asked respondents to tell us about their non-program ducted heat pump installations. As discussed
below, this task was complicated by a couple of factors that emerged during the interviews. To better
understand what we heard during the initial interviews, we called contractors back to clarify and verify
our understanding of their installations.
Respondents did not always differentiate clearly between programs offered by IPC. For example, one
respondent began the interview reporting about their firm’s participation in the low-income
weatherization program. The interviewer eventually realized that the respondent seemed to be talking
about a different program, but the respondent had a hard time differentiating between programs
because, according to the respondent, they completed 10 times more projects through the low-income
weatherization program and had very little experience with the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program.
Respondents used the generic term “heat pump” interchangeably to refer to several different
technologies including ducted heat pumps, ductless heat pumps (a.k.a. mini-splits), and water-source
heat pumps (a.k.a. geothermal or ground-source). This made understanding contractors difficult
because they would be referring to one type of heat pump and then switch to talking about another
type of heat pump without clearly specifying which heat pump type they were talking about.
Interviewers attempted to clarify with respondents which type they were referring to as much as
possible.
Contractor respondents varied greatly in their experience installing ducted heat pumps, their
experience using the program for ducted heat pump projects, and in their perspectives on the
availability of efficient (HSPF ≥8.5) equipment versus less efficient (<8.5) equipment (Table 4-7).
◼ Three contractors, two in the Canyon region and one in Southern Idaho had experience
completing installations through the program and outside the program.
◼ Eleven respondents indicated they sometimes install ducted heat pumps that do not receive the
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program incentive
◼ None of these respondents indicated that the non-program heat pumps meet all of
Idaho Power’s program equipment standards.
◼ Eight noted that the non-program heat pumps they install are HSPF ≥8.5
◼ Only two contractors indicated they use Manual J calculations for all non-program
installs. Three more contractors noted following Manual J for new construction, but not
for retrofits.
◼ Three respondents, two in the Capital region and one in Southern Idaho, reported not completing
any ducted heat pump projects in the last year, either through the program or outside of the
program. Therefore, these respondents could not speak to the differences in installation
procedures or equipment.

Evaluation Report 76

Table 4-7: Respondent Recall of Program and Non-Program Ducted Heat Pump Installations
Resp
Program Participation Data Non-Program HP Install Data
Region Act.
Level
Prog.
Ducted
HP
Non-
prog.
Ducted
HP
HSPF
≥8.5
Winter
Balance
Point
Manual J
Calc.
Air Flow
Calc.
/Nanometer
Checks
refrigerant
charge
Measure
Supply
Return
Temp.
1 Eastern Top
perf. Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Southern Non
part. No Yes 75% Yes
Program
to 10
degrees
For new
construction,
not retrofits
Yes Yes Yes
3 Southern Dab. Yes Yes
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
4 Southern Non
part. No Yes 100% Yes
Program
to 15-20
degrees
No No Yes Yes
5 Eastern Non
part. No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 Canyon Top
perf. Yes Yes 90% Yes Not sure Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Canyon Top
perf. Yes No 100% Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Canyon Top
perf. Yes Yes 100% Yes
Selects
balance
point
based on
system
No
Didn't
answer
question
Didn't
answer
question
Didn't
answer
question
9 Southern Dab. Yes Yes 100% Yes
Program
to 30
degrees
Yes Yes Yes Yes
10 Capital Non
part. No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 Canyon Dab. Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 Capital Dab. Yes Yes
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
13 Capital Non
par. No Yes Not sure Not sure
For new
construction,
not retrofits
For new
construction,
not retrofits
For new
construction,
not retrofits
Yes
14 Canyon Top
perf. No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Southern Non
par. No Yes 95% Yes
Program
to 10-15
degrees
For new
construction,
not retrofits
Yes Yes Yes

Evaluation Report 77

Resp
Program Participation Data Non-Program HP Install Data
Region Act.
Level
Prog.
Ducted
HP
Non-
prog.
Ducted
HP
HSPF
≥8.5
Winter
Balance
Point
Manual J
Calc.
Air Flow
Calc.
/Nanometer
Checks
refrigerant
charge
Measure
Supply
Return
Temp.
16 Southern Dab. Yes Yes 100% Yes
Program
to 15
degrees
Yes Yes Yes Yes
17 Capital Top
perf. Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 Capital Top
perf. Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
19 Capital Dab. No Yes
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable
to
answer
technical
questions
The reasons for installing non-program qualified heat pumps were equipment barriers, financial
barriers, and a lack of understanding regarding program and install requirements.
◼ Equipment Barriers
◼ Five contractors noted they do not always install ducting when installing new equipment
explaining: “ID Power has stringent rules for insulation/leaking, its fine and dandy, but
unless there's something extremely wrong, the ducting is going to be fine and it’s not
worth tearing it all apart.”
◼ Three contractors noted they only install program approved ducted heat pump for new
construction, not retrofit, as it is often too difficult to meet sizing and ducting program
requirements in retrofits.
◼ Financial Barriers
◼ One contractor noted that they sometimes install non-program heat pumps because the
equipment that meet IPC equipment standards are often cost-prohibitive for customers:
“our customers want things installed, but as cheaply as possible. These systems cost a lot
of money…people do not have $10,000 lying around.”
◼ One contractor reported mostly completing ducted heat pumps in some new construction
applications. According to this respondent, the $250 incentive for replacing an existing
ducted unit with a new unit is not worth the time and effort to pursue because it does
not offset the cost of the project enough.
◼ Two contractors reported completing ducted units outside of the program because the
HSPF requirement was too high to participate in the program. These firms install 8.2 HSPF
units because, according to these respondents, customers only want the least expensive
option.
◼ Misunderstanding regarding program and install requirements
◼ Three respondents were either not the installers or not familiar enough with IPC’s
requirements to adequately speak to them during the interview.

Evaluation Report 78

◼ One respondent reported doing many installations in rental units that and believed these
installs did not qualify for the program, even though these installs followed the
installation procedures of the program. This respondents’ answers reflect a
misunderstanding of qualifying applicants, as property managers of rental properties do
qualify.
4.3 Participant Survey Findings
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s findings of the participant survey process evaluation efforts.
4.3.1 Motivation and Satisfaction
As summarized in Section 2.2.6, 129 program participants completed the survey and the overall
response rate was 19%.
The majority of respondents indicated that they participated in the program in order to lower their
energy usage and save money on their utility bill (Figure 4-3). A desire to improve comfort, the availability
of the incentive, and the need to replace old, outdated equipment were also popular response options.

Figure 4-3: Motivation for Participation (n=126)

Participants that worked with contractors are primarily working with contractors they previously
worked with or heard about from someone they knew. About two-thirds of participants worked with a
contractor (64.2%, n=81). Among those participants who used a contractor, three-quarters (74.1%) had
either worked with the contractor before or heard about the contractor through someone they knew
(74.1%). More than eight percent (8.6%) found the contractor through the IPC contractor list.

Most participants who filled out the application found it easy to complete. Most participants filled out
the incentive application themselves (69%) or with their contractor (27%). Among the respondents who
filled out the application themselves (n=87), 80.8% found it somewhat easy or very easy to complete.
Three respondents said it was somewhat difficult to complete. The issues noted were difficulty figuring
0.0%
6.3%
11.9%
12.7%
19.0%
26.2%
45.2%
52.4%
56.3%
75.4%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
Not sure
Other
To replace broken home equipment
It was recommended to me
To improve indoor air quality
To help the environment
To replace old, outdated home equipment
Because an Idaho Power incentive was available
To improve comfort
To lower energy and save money on your utility bill

Evaluation Report 79

out what was needed and that it could not be completed online. A little less than a third (29.4%) of
participants communicated with an Idaho Power representative.

About half of participants (49.2%) noticed a decrease in their electricity bill since participating in the
program and 70.6% noticed other benefits (Figure 4-4). Respondents also noted their homes were a
more consistent and comfortable temperature, they were able to change home temperature remotely,
and the air was cleaner and free of pollutants (Table 4-8).
Figure 4-4: Impact on Electricity Bill

Table 4-8: Program Benefits
Benefit Count Example Quotes
Comfort 28 “More comfortable temperature management”
Air Quality 14 “Fresher air in the house, better overall smell to the air”
Efficiency and Energy Savings 12 “Money savings. It pays for itself over about 4 years.”
Enhanced temperature control 28
“I can adjust my temp if I'm too cold simply by picking up my ipad,
bedside. That ease means that I keep the temperature lower, knowing
it’s easy to raise by several degrees if I'm sitting still”

“We have sensors in every room. This has helped with work from home
and managing the temperatures for different rooms. I love being able
to change which room is used as the “main”, so I can be comfortable
no matter what room I’m in.”
Consistent temperature 17 “The house stays a constant temp without having to check the
thermostat”
Thermostat aesthetic 2 “Better looking thermostat.”

Most respondents, 88.8%, were either satisfied or very satisfied with Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program. Figure 4-5 demonstrates respondents’ satisfaction with various aspects of the
program. In general, respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with all aspects of the program and
61.9% of respondents have recommended the program to someone they know.

Evaluation Report 80

Figure 4-5: Program Satisfaction

Despite the generally high levels of satisfaction, customers did provide suggestions for improvement
(Table 4-9). Many respondents suggested increasing marketing and communication efforts, noting that
the program is not well advertised. Additionally, respondents suggested offering more measures, such
as insulation, as well as increasing incentive amounts. Respondents also noted that the application
process could be simplified and even moved to a fully online platform.
Table 4-9: Suggestions for Improvement
Suggestion Count Quotes
Marketing 20 “A marketing campaign about real people real homes and real results”
Incentive 6
“More $ incentives of course!”

“Offer a little more money. It might get more people to go with efficient electric items.”
Simplify
process 7
“Make some of the questions on the form easier to answer or omit some of the
questions.”

“Somehow simplifying the process for our contractor to successfully do their part! He told
us he tried multiple times to get the information put together . . . somehow it wasn't
simplified enough to be completed.”

“Online forms/ email submission.”

Also, reducing administrative challenges. I had some HVAC work that would have
qualified for the incentive but my preferred contractor was not "Idaho Power" approved
so it was not eligible. I also left my existing system in place for redundancy (specific to the
circumstances of my home) which also would have made it not eligible for the rebate.
Other
incentives 11 I think a broader range of incentives and more flexibility for incentives would be
beneficial.

More than three-quarters (77.8%) of respondents indicated they are satisfied or somewhat satisfied
with Idaho Power as their utility provider and a little more than half (55.6%) noted that participation in
the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program influenced their opinion of the utility. Respondents explained
that they appreciated IPC’s commitment to energy efficiency and their customer’s financial well-being.

Evaluation Report 81

Idaho Power brings to best tools to its customers
to save on energy. Have been in different states
with other electricity providers and frankly Idaho
Power is one of the very best!

I appreciate that a power company is working
towards sustainability and more green thinking

I believe that is showed Idaho Power is interested in the consumer's well-being and the provided
incentives help promote that image.

Knowing they care about their customers to try
and find ways to help them save money and
incentivize it

It is telling that the power company wants us to
reduce our energy usage. We obviously feel the
same about decreasing energy usage and that is
heartwarming. So glad!!

4.3.2 Measure Specific Questions
The Idaho Power Heating & Cooling efficiency program offers a variety of measures to clients. Figure 4-6
demonstrates the types of measures offered and number of survey respondents who received each
measure.
Figure 4-6: Number of Participants per Measure

4.3.2.1 Smart Thermostat
All 64 surveyed participants indicated that the smart thermostat rebated under the program was still
installed and functioning properly.

Evaluation Report 82

About half of the 64 participants who installed a smart thermostat through the program were
replacing a programmable thermostat (56.3%). 51.6% of participants installed thermostat themselves
(n=33) and of those, 17 connected it to a c-wire. The most popular smart thermostat brands were Nest
(35.9%), Ecobee (15.6%), and Honeywell (15.6%).

The majority of participants with smart thermostats indicated that their thermostat was connected to
the internet (85.9%). About two thirds (65.6%) of participants with smart thermostats have their
thermostats change to away mode when they are not home. Among participants who have smart
thermostats set to away mode, more than a third (38.1%) are not sure how the thermostat detects if
they are home. The median away mode temperatures in the winter months is 65 degrees, while the
median away mode temperature in the summer months is 77 degrees. The most common reason for not
switching to away mode is someone is normally home or wanting to keep the house at a comfortable
temperature.

Twenty-six percent of thermostats installed on heat pumps are self-installed and those customers are
using the default manufacturer heat pump settings. There is a clear difference in the rates of self-
installation of thermostats for heat pumps and non-heat pump equipment, with heat pump installations
predominantly performed by contractors (74.1% of thermostats installed on a heat pump were installed
by a contractor vs. 27.0% installed on other heating and cooling equipment, see Figure 4-7).15 Although
the number of responses is limited, it is noteworthy that all customers who installed a Nest thermostat
self-installed it, whereas other brands were mostly installed by contractors.

Customers that are self-installing thermostats on heat pumps appear to be using the manufacturer
default heat pump settings.
◼ Four respondents installed a Nest thermostat, all of whom installed the thermostats themselves.
Three of the four respondents stated that they did not know what the heat pump balance setting
was, and one stated they kept it set to the manufacturer default setting.
◼ Fourteen respondents who installed a non-Nest thermostat had the thermostat installed by a
contractor and two self-installed the thermostat. One respondent stated that they changed the
auxiliary heating settings but said they did not set the compressor lockout or auxiliary heating
threshold temperatures.

15 The difference is statistically significant at p < .05

Evaluation Report 83

Figure 4-7: Smart Thermostat Installation

4.3.2.2 Heat Pump
All 40 surveyed participants indicated that the heat pump rebated under the program was still
installed and functioning properly.
Among the 40 participants with a heat pump, 60% (n=24) have a ductless heat pump and 40% (n=16)
have a ducted heat pump. One third of ductless heat pump owners clean their filter monthly and 18.8%
of ducted heat pump owners change the handler or filter monthly (Figure 4-8).

Figure 4-8: Frequency of Filter Changes

Evaluation Report 84

4.3.2.3 Whole House Fan
All 21 surveyed participants indicated that the whole house fan rebated under the program was still
installed and functioning properly.
Although all participants with a whole house also have an air conditioner, these participants also
indicated they use their air conditioner at least 25% less now that they have a whole house fan (Figure
4-9). Participants indicated that they use their whole house fan most June-September; about half
(47.3%) of participants use their fan for four or more hours per day during summer months.

Figure 4-9: Air Conditioner Usage

Figure 4-10: Percent of Respondents Running Fan During Each Month

4.3.2.4 Evaporative Cooler
The two surveyed participants indicated that the evaporative cooler rebated under the program was
still installed and functioning properly.

Evaluation Report 85

Both participants who bought an evaporative cooler through the program indicated that the
evaporative cooler is the primary equipment they use to cool their homes. In addition to the
evaporative cooler, both participants also use ceiling fans to cool their homes, and one participant also
uses a window A/C unit. One participant bought the evaporative cooler to replace an old evaporative
cooler. The remaining participant bought the evaporative cooler to replace an A/C system.
4.3.2.5 Electronically Commutated Motor
The two surveyed participants indicated that the electronically commutated motor rebated under the
program was still installed and functioning properly.
Neither of the participants who bought an electronically commutated motor use the continuous fan
function.
4.3.2.6 Heat Pump Water Heater
All 8 surveyed participants indicated that the heat pump water heater rebated under the program was
still installed and functioning properly.
All the participants who bought a heat pump water heater were replacing an electric resistance storage
tank water heater.
5. Additional Research Objectives Results
This section summarizes the results of the additional measure research conducted for the program. The
list of measures includes:
◼ Heat pumps (with and without PTCS);
◼ Ducted air source heat pump (Heating Zones 2/3);
◼ Whole house fans;
◼ Electronically commutated motors;
◼ Evaporative coolers; and,
◼ Connected thermostats.
The Evaluators completed research towards the following measure outcomes:
◼ Verify heat pump installations meet Performance Tested Comfort Systems (“PTCS”) standards
for commissioning, controls and sizing and determine if the deactivated Commissioning,
Controls, and Sizing RTF workbook from January 2020 is reasonable to use to estimate verified
energy savings for this measure.
◼ Understand and calculate savings for ducted air source heat pump conversions from electric
forced air furnaces for Heating Zones 2 and 3. In addition, gather information on whether a 8.2
HSPF (federal standard) or 8.5 HSPF standard (RTF standard) is more typically installed for
measures installed outside the program.
◼ Verify savings and review engineering calculations and assumptions for electronically
commutated motors (ECMs), calculate savings relative to whole house fans and understand how
customers use whole house fans relative to air conditioning, and calculate savings related to
evaporative coolers and understand how customers use evaporative coolers relative to air
conditioning.

Evaluation Report 86

◼ Review customer settings on self-installed connected thermostats for heat pump applications in
order to understand customer configuration practices. Specifically, understand auxiliary heat
settings with relation to customer knowledge on heat source equipment settings.
The Evaluators summarize measure-specific results in the sections below.
5.1.1.1 Heat Pumps and PTCS Standards
The Evaluators completed the following research activities for heat pumps with PTCS standards:
◼ Verify heat pumps meet PTCS standards
◼ Conduct participating contractor surveys to gather information on typical installation methods
for heat pumps in the Idaho Power service territory
◼ Conduct a billing regression analysis using consumption data comparing participant and
nonparticipant consumption to identify if PTCS standards result in additional savings as opposed
to heat pump installations without PTCS standards
The Evaluators summarize the results of these research efforts in the sections below.
Verification of PTCS Standards
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) documents the requirements of PTCS standards for air
source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, and duct sealing16. The Evaluators referenced these
requirements to verify if a project meets PTCS standards and therefore meets the RTF commissioning
requirements, based off of these standards. The Evaluators summarize the 5 PTCS requirements for
ducted air source heat pumps here:
1. The equipment must be sized with a balance point of 35F or less. The balance point of the system
is the intersection of the heating load and the heating pump capacity between 17F and 47F (Figure
5-1).
2. The external static pressure (ESP) acting on the system air handler must not exceed 0.8 inches of
water (200 Pa).
3. Air flow across the indoor coil must be as specified in the heat pump manufacturer’s
documentation, or at least 325 to no more than 500 cubic feet per minute (CFM) per 12,000
Btu/hr output at AHRI rating conditions if the manufacturer’s documentation is not specific.
4. Temperature change across the air handler indoor coil must be at or above the minimum
temperature split17 when the outdoor air temperature is 65F or less. The subcooling must meet
manufacturer’s documented requirements if the outdoor temperature is greater than 65F18.
5. If a low ambient temperature compressor cutout option is installed, it must not cut out the
compressor at temperatures above 5F. Auxiliary heat must also be controlled in such a manner
that it does not engage when the outdoor air temperature is above 35F, except when
supplemental heating is required during a defrost cycle or when emergency heating is required
during a refrigeration cycle failure. For constant speed systems with multiple stages of

16 https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Sectors/Residential/Pages/PTCS-Essentials.aspx
17 https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Sectors/Residential/Documents/HP_Temp_Split_Table.pdf
18 https://www.bpa.gov/EE/Sectors/Residential/Documents/R-410A_Pressure_Temperature_Chart.pdf

Evaluation Report 87

compression and supply air temperature sensor control, auxiliary heat shall be controlled in such
a manner that it does not engage when the supply air temperature is above 85F.
In addition to the above, PTCS certification can only be applied to systems with single and two stage
compressors. Variable speed/capacity compressors are not eligible.
Figure 5-1: Air Source Heat Pump Balance Point Example

Provided Documentation
The Evaluators had received project documentation including the following components:
◼ Internal IPC cover page detailing the project type
◼ Program rebate incentive application
◼ Program air source heat pump worksheet
◼ Technician installation worksheets
◼ Invoice associated to equipment and installation
◼ AHRI certificate associated with equipment
◼ A worksheet detailing the equipment sizing and heating load at 30F, 9F, or 11F
Some projects also included a short form or compliance report detailing the equipment specifications.
The Evaluators used the above documents to verify PTCS certification where possible. In the case a
project does not contain the necessary information to confirm PTCS certification, commissioning savings
was removed from the project.

Evaluation Report 88

PTCS Verification Findings
The Evaluators verified each project’s heating capacity at 17F and 47F with the associated AHRI
reference number associated with the model. The heating load design temperature was collected from
the heat pump sizing worksheets provided with the rebate applications. The balance point at the
intersection for these two slopes was verified through calculation.
For some projects, the ESP was not available. The normal system operating pressure (NSOP), which is
measured during the supply air flow test, was used as replacement for the ESP when not provided in the
documentation. This value is measured in a similar fashion as the ESP, and provides sufficient proxy for
the ESP. The True Flow test documents were reviewed to confirm if the air flow across the coil is within
the required CFM per 12,000 BTU/hr.
The Evaluators found that 19 of the 55 rebated projects which claimed PTCS standards had met the
requirements for the PTCS ducted air source heat pump certification and therefore qualified for the RTF
commissioning UES. The balance point and the ESP were only available if the compliance report or short
form was provided. In most cases where the project failed to meet PTCS standards, the failure occurred
due to measured values not meeting or exceeding requirements rather than lack of information
provided. The next largest contributing factor for a project to fail PTCS certification was due
measurements indicating auxiliary heater operated at outsides air temperatures above 35F and
therefore exceed the 35F maximum auxiliary heater operation controls. The documentation provided in
most cases did not include information to confirm this requirement.
In addition, within the controls portion of the air source heat pump rebate worksheet, many customers
and contractors did not confirm whether the verification had been completed by a qualified technician.
The Evaluators recommend that in cases where worksheets or information is not filled out on incentive
applications, IPC staff follow up to confirm with the customer or contractor before submitting rebate
incentives. This additional step will allow evaluators to confirm savings for each project.
The Evaluators summarize the number of sampled projects that pass, fail, or fail to verify PTCS
requirements in the table below.
Table 5-1: PTCS Verification Summary
PTCS
Requirement Description Passed Failed Missing
1 Balance point of 35F or less 32 18 5
2 External static pressure less than .8 inches of
water (200 Pa) 47 3 5
3 Air flow (CFM/Btuh) between .027 - .042 44 8 3
4a Actual temperature split meets requirements 45 10 0
4b Actual subcooling (F) meets requirements 51 0 4
5 Auxiliary must not engage when the supply air
temperature is above 85F 55 0 0
Nineteen of the 55 sampled projects passed all 5 PTCS requirements defined by the Bonneville Power
Administration and by the RTF Commissioning, Controls, & Sizing workbook, representing a 30%
verification rate.
Because the controls and sizing components of the PTCS standards are the most impactful towards PTCS
savings, the balance point requirement of 35F or lower and the temperature split and subcooling

Evaluation Report 89

controls are critical to claiming and observing PTCS savings. Therefore, although 70% of the projects do
not meet all 5 PTCS requirements simultaneously, the majority of projects meet or exceed these
requirements individually. The Evaluators therefore believe that projects still display quantifiable savings
due to these additional program requirements. Therefore, although RTF specifications are not met,
quantifiable savings may be verified through billing analysis of observed monthly customer bills. Based
on PTCS verification findings and the components being met, there likely exists significant potential for
additional savings through the PTCS activities.
In-depth Contractor Interviews
PTCS standards on commissioning, controls, and sizing provided in the section above may not be
implemented for nonparticipating program heat pump installs. In order to gather additional insight into
typical heat pump commissioning, controls, and sizing standards, the Evaluators included questions in
participating program contractor in-depth interviews addressing the steps contractors typically
undertake during a heat pump install that is not rebated through the program. The Evaluators provide
more detailed results of the contractor interviews in Section 4.2.5. The Evaluators provide a brief
summary of the detailed results in this section.
To determine if the performance tested comfort standards (PTCS) required for ducted heat pump
installations are an impediment to contractors completing more projects through the program, we
asked respondents to tell us about their non-program ducted heat pump installations. The Evaluators
summarize the results in the table below.
Table 5-2: Respondent Recall of Non-Program Ducted Heat Pump Installation Procedures
Resp 2020 Category Winter
Balance Point Manual J Calc. Air Flow Calc.
/ Nanometer
Checks
refrigerant
charge
Measure
Supply Return
Temp.
1 Top perf. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Non part. Program to 10
degrees
For new
construction,
not retrofits
Yes Yes Yes
3 Dab.
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
4 Non part. Program to
15-20 degrees No No Yes Yes
5 Non part. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 Top perf. Not sure Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Top perf. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Top perf.
Selects
balance point
based on
system
No Didn't answer
question
Didn't answer
question
Didn't answer
question
9 Dab. Program to 30
degrees Yes Yes Yes Yes
10 Non part. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 Dab. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 Dab. Unable to
answer
Unable to
answer
Unable to
answer
Unable to
answer
Unable to
answer

Evaluation Report 90

Resp 2020 Category Winter
Balance Point Manual J Calc. Air Flow Calc.
/ Nanometer
Checks
refrigerant
charge
Measure
Supply Return
Temp.
technical
questions
technical
questions
technical
questions
technical
questions
technical
questions
13 Non par. Not sure
For new
construction,
not retrofits
For new
construction,
not retrofits
For new
construction,
not retrofits
Yes
14 Top perf. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Non par. Program to
10-15 degrees
For new
construction,
not retrofits
Yes Yes Yes
16 Dab. Program to 15
degrees Yes Yes Yes Yes
17 Top perf. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 Top perf. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
19 Dab.
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
Unable to
answer
technical
questions
The Evaluators summarize the findings here:
◼ Ten respondents were able to answer the technical questions presented during the interview
about the installation practices. Of the ten respondents, three had indicated that they conduct
the same program-required installation procedures outside of the program but had indicated
that they only conduct those practices for new construction air source heat pumps, and not for
retrofit air source heat pumps. These three respondents had indicated it is often too difficult to
meet sizing and ducting program requirements in retrofits.
◼ Five contractors noted they do not always install ducting when installing new equipment
explaining: “ID Power has stringent rules for insulation/leaking, its fine and dandy, but unless
there's something extremely wrong, the ducting is going to be fine and its not worth tearing it all
apart.”
◼ The PTCS standards require that the balance point not exceed 30F. Five contractors indicated
that they typically install the equipment set to a balance point of 30F or lower for installations
outside the program.
◼ Respondent RESP6, a top performer in the program, reported that installation practices and
procedures do not differ between program and non-program units. According to this
respondent, they always do Manual J calculations and the “installers do not even know if they
are completing a program or non-program project” when they are on the job site.
◼ Like RESP6, RESP7, also a top performer in the program, reported there was no difference in
equipment efficiency standards or installation procedures for program or non-program
installations. “Everything we do is 8.5 HSPF or above.” Projects completed outside of the
program were in other service territories or in new construction.
◼ One respondent reported doing many installations in rental units that and believed these installs
did not qualify for the program, even though these installs followed the installation procedures

Evaluation Report 91

of the program. This respondents’ answers reflect a misunderstanding of qualifying applicants, as
property managers of rental properties do qualify.
◼ According to this respondent, the $250 incentive for replacing an existing ducted unit with a new
unit is not worth the time and effort to pursue because it does not offset the cost of the project
enough.
The Evaluators found mixed responses with respect to installation practices completed by contractors
outside the program. Many top performers did not install ducted heat pumps outside of the program. In
addition, many dabblers and non-participating contractors display lack of knowledge about these
standards or confirm that they do not implement them for installations conducted outside of the
program. Additional findings from this research effort found that many contractors lack understanding
of the program requirements, and therefore avoid the risk of trying to participate in the program. The
reasons for installing non-program qualified heat pumps were equipment barriers, financial barriers, and
a lack of understanding regarding program and install requirements.
Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the air source heat pump upgrade measure with PTCS standards is
provided in this section. The methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.5.5. Table 5-3
displays customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-
measure installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Additional detail for this billing analysis is provided in Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.
Table 5-3: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF with PTCS
standards
✓ 72 ✓
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level energy savings through billing analysis regression
with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate
each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects using the customer’s
consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 30 customers with single-measure
installations. This restriction was met by the air source heat pump upgrades with PTCS standards.
Therefore, the Evaluators continued with regression analysis for the measure. This ensured that
measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g. sufficient pre-
and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in PY2018, PY2019, and PY2020 in order
to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 3 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 3 similar control customers. The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 5-4.
The Evaluators performed t-tests on pre-period usage by month to determine the success of PSM. The t-
tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure in each Heating Zone. T-tests of monthly pre

Evaluation Report 92

period usage can yield a statistically significant difference 40% of the time for one to two months out of
12. Thus, the Evaluators set a tolerance band allowing two months out of 12 to vary in pre-period usage
at the 95% confidence level. The groups for this measure passed this threshold, indicating the groups
were well matched on all included covariates.
Table 5-4 provides annual savings per customer for the air source heat pump upgrades with PTCS
commissioning. Model 1 (D-n-D) was selected as the final model for the measure as it provided the
highest adjusted R-squared among the regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90%
level. The adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (0.79).
Table 5-4: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
kWh
Savings per
Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
Air-Source Heat Pump
to Air-Source Heat
Pump: 8.5 HSPF with
PTCS standards
24 72 1,263 198 2,328 0.79 Model
1: D-n-D
The goal of this additional research objective is to attempt to quantify incremental savings for PTCS
commissioning efforts achieved by IPC and the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.
These results indicate that savings for air source heat pump upgrade measure with PTCS standards in
the program achieve 1,263 kWh savings per year. This value differs from the RTF provided UES values for
air source heat pump upgrades with PTCS commissioning. The RTF provides UES values for air source
heat pump upgrades with PTCS commissioning between 788 kWh and 1,160 kWh, depending on Heating
Zone. The billing analysis displays statistically significant results with high precision and low error. The
results of the billing analysis provide savings results about 30% higher than the RTF-provided savings for
this measure.
The Evaluators are unable to separate the estimated savings between the air source heat pump upgrade
savings from the equipment component and the air source heat pump upgrade savings from the PTCS
commissioning component. However, the results of the billing analysis indicate that observed savings
from this measure for participants in the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program are significantly higher
than currently estimated by the RTF.
In January 2020, the RTF deactivated the Commissioning, Controls, & Sizing workbook for single family
homes with air source heat pump equipment installed. The RTF voted to deactivate the workbook due
to insufficient billing data to calibrate simulated model savings outputs to the northwest region.
The high savings value derived from this billing analysis may be due to the baseline defined for the RTF
air source heat pump workbook. The RTF defines the baseline for this measure as homes with air source
heat pumps of HSPF 8.5 and 14 SEER. However, the projects contained in the Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program most likely are replacing older units that fall below the current 14 SEER/8.2 HSPF
federal standard. This would lead to deflated expected savings compared to the observed savings from
the billing analysis. In addition, commissioning, controls, and sizing savings being dependent on local
climate, which the RTF have been unable to sufficiently quantify savings due to PTCS standards.

Evaluation Report 93

This billing analysis provides insight on the relative impact of the air source heat pump upgrades and
PTCS commissioning activities provided by IPC in the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program. The results
of this analysis are unable to be used to estimate separate savings values for the air source heat pump
upgrade and the PTCS commissioning standards, however, it does provide insight on the impact of the
air source heat pump upgrades and PTCS commissioning activities in the program, combined.
Because the Commissioning, Controls, & Sizing workbook from the RTF will be deactivated and unable to
be used towards PY2021 projects for claimed savings, the Evaluators recommend conducting billing
analyses for this measure for PY2021 to estimate observed, verified impacts from the measure. This
analysis would estimate average impacts for the air source heat pump upgrades completed by IPC’s
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program, which would therefore include the PTCS commissioning efforts
completed by the contractors that IPC train and work alongside.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the heat pumps and PTCS
standards research efforts:
◼ Conclusion: The majority of ducted heat pump projects completed through the program cannot
be confirmed to meet PTCS standards either due to lack of required information in
documentation, or due to provided documentation displaying values that do not meet PTCS
standards. Nineteen of the 76 sampled projects met PTCS requirements as found through
document verification. For projects in which the Evaluators are unable to confirm PTCS
standards are met, RTF Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing savings were removed from the
project.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend IPC require additional documents to
properly verify each of the five components for PTCS certification:
▪ Collect each air source heat pump heating capacity at 17F and 47F and ensure
heat pump sizing worksheets document heating load design temperature of
equipment.
▪ Collect equipment air flow values (CFM/BTUh) to confirm values are within
0.027 and 0.042.
▪ Collect external static pressure value at 0.8 inches of water (200 Pa).
▪ Require customers confirm that the equipment was installed to manufacturer’s
recommendations.
▪ Require customers confirm that auxiliary heat does not engage when the
outdoor air temperature is above 35F
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators utilized the billing analysis results for the air source heat pump
upgrades completed in PY2020 projects. The RTF deactivated the Commissioning, Controls, &
Sizing workbook in January 2020. However, the RTF intends to consider other versions of this
measure in the future.
◼ Recommendation: Due to inability to claim savings from additional commissioning,
controls, and sizing practices for ducted heat pump measures through the RTF while the
measure is deactivated, the Evaluators recommend to continue analyzing impacts
through measurement or observed billing analysis in the future. Once the RTF approves

Evaluation Report 94

a new measure for PTCS standards, the Evaluators recommend using the UES values
presented in the new workbook.
◼ Conclusion: Contractor respondents varied greatly in their experience installing ducted heat
pumps and installation procedures conducted for non-program installations. Eleven respondents
indicated they sometimes install ducted heat pumps that do not receive the Heating and Cooling
Efficiency Program incentive. Two contractors indicated they use Manual J calculations for all
non-program installs while three contractors noted following Manual J procedures for new
construction ducted heat pumps, but not for retrofits, as the program requirements are too
stringent.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that the top performers in the program typically install
equipment outside the program to meet the PTCS/Manual J requirements. However, many
dabblers and non-participating contractors display lack of knowledge about these standards or
confirm that they do not implement them for installations conducted outside of the program.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend that IPC provide additional efforts to
provide educational training to assist in building contractor awareness of the program
and the program requirements.
◼ Conclusion: The reasons for installing non-program qualified heat pumps were equipment
barriers, financial barriers, and a lack of understanding regarding program and install
requirements. Many contractors lack understanding of the program requirements, and
therefore avoid the risk of trying to participate in the program.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend exploring options to provide higher
incentive levels for ducted heat pump projects.
◼ Conclusion: These results indicate that savings for air source heat pump upgrade measure with
PTCS standards in the program achieve 1,263 kWh savings per year, about 30% higher than the
savings values presented in the RTF for air source heat pump upgrades with commissioning,
controls, and sizing standards. This value includes projects for which efficient equipment
displays HSPF of 8.5 or greater.
◼ Recommendation: Because the Commissioning, Controls, & Sizing workbook from the
RTF will be deactivated and unable to be used towards PY2021 projects for claimed
savings, and because the projects seem to benefit from additional savings due to these
additional sizing activities, the Evaluators recommend using the results of this billing
analysis to quantify savings for ducted heat pump upgrades projects rebated through
the program. This analysis would estimate average impacts for the air source heat pump
upgrades completed and verified by IPC’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.
5.1.1.2 Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ2/HZ3 & HSPF Baseline Research
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s approach to complete the following research objectives for the
air source heat pump conversions in the program:

Evaluation Report 95

◼ Understand and calculate savings for ducted air source heat pump conversions from electric
forced air furnaces for Heating Zones 2 and 3
◼ Gain insights on whether 8.2 HSPF or 8.5 HSPF efficiency standard are more typical for measures
installed within the program and outside the program
◼ If the RTF workbook allows, modify the RTF workbook baseline by integrating findings on typical
HSPF efficiency standards outside the program
Baseline Conversion Standards (8.2 vs. 8.5 HSPF)
The program requires a minimum 8.5 HSPF efficiency in order to participate in the program. In order to
understand typical HSPF baseline standards outside the program, the Evaluators included questions to
the in-depth contractor surveys addressing typical HSPF efficiency baselines for conversions conducted
outside the program, within the Idaho Power service territory.
The Evaluators provide the detailed results of the contractor interviews in Section 4.2.5. The Evaluators
provide a brief summary of the detailed results in this section.
Table 5-5: Respondent Recall of Program and Non-Program Ducted Heat Pump Equipment
Resp
2020
Performance
Category
Region
Prog.
Ducted HP
Experience
Non-prog. ducted
HP Experience
Non-Program HSPF
≥8.5
1 Top perf. Eastern Yes No N/A
2 Non part. Southern No Yes 75% Yes
3 Dabbler Southern Yes Yes Unable to answer
technical questions
4 Non part. Southern No Yes 100% Yes
5 Non part. Eastern No No N/A
6 Top perf. Canyon Yes Yes 90% Yes
7 Top perf. Canyon Yes No 100% Yes
8 Top perf. Canyon Yes Yes 100% Yes
9 Dabbler Southern Yes Yes 100% Yes
10 Non part. Capital No No N/A
11 Dabbler Canyon Yes No N/A
12 Dabbler Capital Yes Yes Unable to answer
technical questions
13 Non par. Capital No Yes Not sure
14 Top perf. Canyon No No N/A
15 Non par. Southern No Yes 95% Yes
16 Dab. Southern Yes Yes 100% Yes
17 Top perf. Capital Yes No N/A
18 Top perf. Capital Yes No N/A
19 Dabbler Capital No Yes Unable to answer
technical questions
Contractor respondents varied greatly in their experience installing ducted heat pumps, their experience
using the program for ducted heat pump projects, and in their perspectives on the availability of
efficient (HSPF ≥8.5) equipment versus less efficient (<8.5) equipment.

Evaluation Report 96

◼ Eleven respondents indicated they sometimes install ducted heat pumps that do not receive the
Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program incentive. None of these respondents indicated that the
non-program heat pumps meet all of Idaho Power’s program equipment standards. Eight noted
that the non-program heat pumps they install are HSPF ≥8.5
Top performers typically install ducted heat pumps to the same efficiency standards (8.5 HSPF) as
required through the program:
◼ Respondent RESP6, a top performing contractor, reported the only difference between ducted
units that go through the program and those outside of the program is the conditions in which
they are being installed. This respondent reported that “almost all” ducted units are program
eligible (8.5 HSPF and above). Those installed outside of the program are in housing conditions
that make them ineligible to participate such as not replacing electric heat or if the house is
“huge.” Furthermore, installation practices and procedures do not differ between program and
non-program units. According to this respondent, they always do manual J calculations and the
“installers do not even know if they are completing a program or non-program project” when they
are on the job site.
◼ RESP7, also a top performing contractor in the program, reported there was no difference in
equipment efficiency standards or installation procedures for program or non-program
installations. “Everything we do is 8.5 HSPF or above.” Projects completed outside of the program
were in other service territories or in new construction.
The Evaluators found that the reasons for installing non-program qualified heat pumps were equipment
barriers, financial barriers, and a lack of understanding regarding program and install requirements. In
addition, HSPF efficiency practices outside the program are unable to be estimated, as contractors
indicate a mix of responses for HSPF above 8.5 and HSPF below 8.5.
RTF UES Modification
Another research goal for this analysis is to determine if the RTF’s UES using a 9.0 HSPF minimum and
8.5 HSPF baseline can be adjusted to fit the requirements of the program, which requires a 8.5 HSPF
minimum. Although the majority of projects rebated through the program meet or exceed 9.0 HSPF, IPC
would still like to provide incentives for customers who have installed an 8.5 HSPF air source heat pump,
which is still more efficient than the federally required minimum of 8.2 HSPF.
Therefore, in addition to the above contractor interview questions and billing analysis, the Evaluators
explored the inclusion of the HSPF proxy estimates resulting from the contractor interviews to guide RTF
workbook modifications to include this changed baseline.
Due to the methodology employed by the RTF to calculate UES values for ducted heat pumps, baseline
adjustments are not possible. The RTF uses simulated modeling in which the 8.2 HSPF portrays the
counterfactual (baseline) to the 8.5 HSPF efficient equipment.
In addition, the findings of the contractor interview indicate that the 8.2 HSPF equipment are still widely
available and remain a valid option for customers outside of the program. Therefore, the Evaluators
recommend that IPC continue to use the RTF-approved UES values for ducted heat pump conversions to
evaluate savings for the projects, which already define the federal minimum of 8.2 HSPF as the baseline.

Evaluation Report 97

Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the air source heat pump conversion measure is provided in this
section. The methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.5.5. Table 5-6 displays
customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure
installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis. Additional detail
for this billing analysis is provided in Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.
Table 5-6: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions
Measure Heating
Zone
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
Electric Heating System to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF
1 ✓ 65 ✓
2 ✓ 34 ✓
3 10
2/3 ✓ 44 ✓
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level energy savings by Heating Zone through billing
analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators
attempted to isolate each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects
using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 30 customers with single-measure
installations. This restriction was not met by the air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 3.
However, the Evaluators attempted to estimate a savings value for the aggregate of projects installed in
Heating Zones 2 and 3, as sufficient participation exists for this group.
Therefore, the Evaluators continued with regression analysis for Heating Zones 1, 2, and 2/3. This
ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g.
sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in PY2018, PY2019, and
PY2020 in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.
The Evaluators performed t-tests on pre-period usage by month to determine the success of PSM. The t-
tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure in each Heating Zone. T-tests of monthly pre
period usage can yield a statistically significant difference 40% of the time for one to two months out of
12. Thus, the Evaluators set a tolerance band allowing two months out of 12 to vary in pre-period usage
at the 95% confidence level. All Heating Zone groups passed this threshold, indicating the groups were
well matched on all included covariates.
Table 5-7 provides annual savings per customer for each Heating Zone. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as
the final model for the measure as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level Heating Zones 1 and 2. The adjusted R-
squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data of nearly 0.7 and above.

Evaluation Report 98

Table 5-7: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions
Heating
Zone
Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
kWh
Savings per
Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
1 36 105 1,513 715 2,312 0.73 Model 1: D-n-D
2 18 54 2,609 1,289 3,929 0.79 Model 1: D-n-D
2/3 23 61 2,029 830 3,228 0.79 Model 1: D-n-D
The Evaluators were unable to complete the regression analysis for Heating Zone 3 due to low
participation. However, the Evaluators provide statistically significant savings for Heating Zones 1, 2, and
2/3.
The goal of this additional research objective is to identify if the air source heat pump conversions are
shown to save more energy in the colder regions (Heating Zones 2 and 3). Although Heating Zone 3
energy savings are unable to be quantified, the results of the billing analysis for Heating Zones 1, 2, and
2/3 confirm that the air source heat pump conversions display significantly higher savings in the colder
regions (Heating Zone 2 and 2/3). Annual energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in
Heating Zone 1, 2, and 2/3 totals 1,513 kWh per year 2,609 kWh per year, and 2,026 kWh per year,
respectively. These results indicate that savings for air source heat pump conversion measures in
Heating Zone 2 are, on average, 58% higher than energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in
Heating Zone 1 and savings for the measure in Heating Zone 2/3 is, on average, 34% higher than in
Heating Zone 1.
The RTF provides UES values for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 1 between 3,711 and
8,943, depending on insulation level. The RTF provides UES values for air source heat pump conversions
in Heating Zones 2 between 3,605 and 8,594, depending on the insulation level. The results of the billing
analysis provide savings values significantly lower than the RTF-provided savings for this measure,
regardless of Heating Zone.
The observed energy reductions through billing analysis may be low due to changes in participant
energy consumption behaviors after installing more efficient equipment.
The Evaluators recommend that IPC continue to use the RTF-approved UES values for ducted heat pump
conversions to evaluate savings for the projects, which already define the federal minimum of 8.2 HSPF
as the baseline.
Unfortunately, the participation levels are not sufficient for providing to the RTF to assist in the RTF’s
calibration efforts for HZ2/HZ3 as defined by the participation requirements in the RTF’s research
strategy19.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the ducted heat pumps and 8.2 vs
8.5 HSPF standards research efforts:
◼ Conclusion: According to contractor responses, barriers to completing more ducted heat pump
projects in the region are: low incentive levels and availability of less efficient options.

19 https://nwcouncil.app.box.com/v/ASHPResearchStrategy092020

Evaluation Report 99

▪ The incentive ($250) for replacing existing ducted heat pumps with new more
efficient units is insufficient so contractors do not offer it or it is not enough to
prompt a customer to act.
▪ Less efficient (<8.5 HSPF) options are still seen as widely available, especially
outside the Capital and Canyon areas, and those units are inexpensive enough
that they still appeal to many contractors and customers.
◼ Recommendation: Consider increasing the existing incentive amounts as well as expand
measures offered, if cost-effectiveness allows. Not only was equipment cost the biggest
barrier to customer participation according to interviewed contractors, but many
customers surveyed suggested offering larger and more wide-reaching discounts.
◼ Recommendation: Work with distributors and suppliers to better understand the
availability of ducted heat pump units with an HSPF ≥8.5 and <8.5. Consider ways to
incent distributors to push or offer higher efficient units, especially in areas outside of
the Capital region.
◼ Conclusion: Annual energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 1, 2, and
2/3 totals 1,513 kWh per year 2,609 kWh per year, and 2,026 kWh per year, respectively. These
results indicate that savings for air source heat pump conversion measures in Heating Zone 2 are,
on average, 58% higher than energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone
1 and savings for the measure in Heating Zone 2/3 is, on average, 34% higher than in Heating Zone
1. However, the results of the billing analysis provide savings values significantly lower than the
RTF-provided savings for this measure, regardless of Heating Zone.
◼ Conclusion: The RTF workbook which calculates ducted heat pump conversion savings is unable
to be modified. In addition, research indicates that 8.2 HSPF equipment are still widely available
and remain a valid option for customers outside of the program.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend that IPC continue to use the RTF-approved
UES values for ducted heat pump conversions to evaluate savings for the projects, which
already define the federal minimum of 8.2 HSPF as the baseline. For the PTCS standards
portion of the projects, the Evaluators recommend requiring sufficient documentation to
confirm PTCS certification. In addition, due to RTF deactivation of the Commissioning,
Controls, and Sizing workbook, and due to the results of the billing analysis, the Evaluators
recommend IPC does not claim additional sizing savings for these projects.
5.1.1.3 ECMs, Whole House Fans, and Evaporative Coolers
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s approach to:

Evaluation Report 100

◼ Verify savings and review engineering calculations and assumptions for electronically
commutated motors (ECMs);
◼ Calculate savings relative to whole house fans and understand how customers use whole house
fans relative to air conditioning; and,
◼ Calculate savings related to evaporative coolers and understand how customers use
evaporative coolers relative to air conditioning.
Electronically Commutated Motors
The Evaluators verified savings for ECMs by conducting an engineering review of assumptions used in
Idaho Power deemed savings estimates, which addressed the run mode of the baseline and ECM blower
and the HVAC equipment configuration and fuel type. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the savings
values derived from the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab workpaper on Electronically
Commutated Motors along with verified tracking data to estimate net program savings for this measure.
The Evaluators employed the following workbook to calculate verified savings for the measure:
◼ University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Electronically Commutated Motors Literature Review,
December 31, 2014.
The Evaluators reviewed the literature review workpaper and confirmed that savings values are
applicable to the ECM projects completed Idaho Power service territory. Therefore, the Evaluators
utilized the savings calculations derived from the Integrated Design Lab literature review workpaper for
the ECM projects completed in the Idaho Power service territory.
The Evaluators provide a summary of the engineering assumptions review and the measure-level impact
findings in Section 3.2.5 within the measure-level impact evaluation results.
Whole House Fans
To better understand how whole house fans are used by customers, the Evaluators included survey
questions for customers who installed whole house fans to provide insights into their use compared to
air conditioning. In addition, the Evaluators summarize the findings of the participant feedback
regarding additional available options for cooling their home and during what circumstances they are
used. The Evaluators detail the results of the survey for this measure in Section 4.3.2.3. The Evaluators
briefly summarize the findings in this section.
The Evaluators were able to receive 21 responses to the survey questions for this measure. All 21
surveyed participants indicated that the whole house fan rebated under the program was still installed
and functioning properly. Although all participants with a whole house also have an air conditioner,
these participants indicated they use their air conditioner at least 25% less now that they have a whole
house fan.
Surveys also addressed average hours of use of the whole-house fan per week during the summer
cooling season and compares impacts with the rebate applications used towards whole house fan
engineering calculations. Participants indicated that they use their whole house fan most June-
September; about half (47.3%) of participants use their fan for four or more hours per day during
summer months. Using the responses from this survey, the Evaluators estimate actual number of hours
participants use the whole house fan during summer months in the table below.

Evaluation Report 101

Table 5-8: Estimated Annual Hours of Operation, Whole House Fans
Month
Days
in
Month
Estimated
Hours/Day
WHF Is On
Estimated
Hours/Month
WHF Is On
Lower
Boundary
(2 Hours/Day)
Upper
Boundary
(6 Hours/Day)
June 30 4 120 60 180
July 31 4 124 62 186
August 31 4 124 62 186
September 30 4 120 60 180
Total 120 4 488 244 731
The Evaluators estimate a lower and upper boundary for this estimate, ±2 hours each day, resulting in
whole house fan annual hours of use between 244 hours and 731. It is likely that the actual estimate is
closer to the lower boundary due to a portion of customers indicating that they do not use their whole
house fans at all during some summer months (Figure 5-2). The estimates provided above indicates that
the IDL workpapers in which 343 cooling hours per year below 78F outside air temperature available for
WHF use is a reasonable estimate compared to survey responses.
Figure 5-2: Percent of Respondents Running Fan During Each Month

Evaporative Coolers
The Evaluators summarize the findings of the evaporative cooler participant feedback regarding
whether the unit replaced existing refrigerated air systems or if it supplanted what would have
otherwise been the purchase of a refrigerated air system.
The Evaluators employed the following New Mexico TRM section to calculate verified savings for the
measure: New Mexico Technical Reference Manual, July 2021, Section 4.7 Evaporative Coolers20.
The Evaluators reviewed the New Mexico TRM and confirmed that savings values are applicable to the
Idaho Power service territory, due to similarity of cooling degree days between Boise, ID and Santa Fe,

20 https://www.nm-prc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/New-Mexico-TRM-2021-Final-03-09-2021.pdf

Evaluation Report 102

NM. The New Mexico TRM indicates that a NTG ratio indicating the proportion of projects which had
installed the evaporative cooler to replace refrigerated air must be applied to this deemed savings value.
Two of the 9 customers who had rebated an evaporative cooler during PY2020 had responded to the
survey. One of the respondents (50%) had indicated that the evaporative cooler was replacing
refrigerated air (an A/C unit). This would indicate that a NTG ratio for this measure would be 50%.
However, due to low response rate, the Evaluators chose to conduct a literature review and selected the
NTG ratio of 44.4% calculated for Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) provided in the PNM
2015 impact evaluation in which a comprehensive survey effort was performed to estimate NTG for
evaporative coolers. This survey effort yielded 90% confidence and ±8.3% sample precision for the
evaporative cooler channel in PNM’s Stay Cool Program. The Evaluators selected this NTG because the
results are similar to IPC survey responses, the value summarizes a large study that met 90/10 precision
for the PNM impact evaluation, and the 44.40% value represents the same service area in which the
impact savings values are sourced from.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the measures researched above:
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators reviewed the Integrated Design Lab literature review workpaper and
confirmed that savings values are applicable to the ECM projects completed Idaho Power service
territory.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend continuing to utilize the savings
calculations derived from the Integrated Design Lab literature review workpaper for the
evaporative cooler projects completed in the Idaho Power service territory.
◼ Conclusion: Participants indicated that they use their whole house fan most June-September;
about half (47.3%) of participants use their fan for four or more hours per day during summer
months. The Evaluators used these results to estimate annual hours of operation for whole house
fans in the program of between 244 and 731 hours, which is consistent with the IDL workpaper
estimate of 343 hours.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend continuing to use the IDL workpaper
estimates, as they continue to portray results similar to survey responses.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that of the two respondents (50%) of customers who had
rebated an evaporative cooler had indicated that the evaporative cooler was replacing
refrigerated air (an A/C unit).
◼ Recommendation: Due to low response rate for the measure, the Evaluators recommend
utilizing the NTG ratio of 44.4% calculated for Public Service Company of New Mexico
(PNM) provided in the PNM 2015 impact evaluation as an adjustment factor to the energy
savings claimed through the PNM TRM for evaporative coolers.
5.1.1.4 Smart Thermostats
This section summarizes the Evaluator’s findings for the additional research objectives for the smart
thermostat measure.

Evaluation Report 103

Participant Survey Findings
The Evaluators provide detailed findings for the smart thermostat measure in Section 4.3.2.1. The
Evaluators summarize the findings in this section.
Twenty-six percent of thermostats installed on heat pumps are self-installed and those customers are
using the default manufacturer heat pump settings. There is a clear difference in the rates of self-
installation of thermostats for heat pumps and non-heat pump equipment, with heat pump installations
predominantly performed by contractors (74.1% of thermostats installed on a heat pump were installed
by a contractor vs. 27.0% installed on other heating and cooling equipment).
Customers that are self-installing thermostats on heat pumps appear to be using the manufacturer
default heat pump settings. Thirty-three respondents had installed the smart thermostats themselves.
Of those, 17 (51.5%) connected it to a c-wire. One respondent stated that they changed the auxiliary
heating settings but said they did not set the compressor lockout or auxiliary heating threshold
temperatures.
Through the questions provided in the survey, the customers who had self-installed the smart
thermostat with a heat pump indicate little knowledge about the proper installation practices and had
not adjusted auxiliary heat settings or compressor lockout settings with respect to the settings from
their heat pump. Instead, the majority of self-install customers with heat pump systems had installed
the smart thermostat to the default settings provided by the manufacturer.
In contrast, the contractor-installed smart thermostats are installed to meet the proper auxiliary and
compressor lockout settings with respect to the household’s heat pump equipment settings. This
research indicates that the self-installed smart thermostats may not be meeting the full potential of
energy savings due to the oversight of these additional energy-saving settings. This finding is further
supported by the billing analysis provided below.
In addition, the responses gathered for the smart thermostat measure indicate that About half of the 64
participants who installed a smart thermostat through the program were replacing a programmable
thermostat (56.3%) and that the majority of participants with smart thermostats indicated that their
thermostat was connected to the internet (85.9%). The majority (65.6%) of participants with smart
thermostats have their thermostats change to away mode when they are not home. The most common
reason for not switching to away mode is someone is normally home or wanting to keep the house at a
comfortable temperature.
This finding indicates that customers with smart thermostats find value in keeping their homes at a
comfortable temperature. Additionally, customers use energy-saving features available to them to save
energy when they are not home.
Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the smart thermostat measure is provided in this section. The
methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.5.5. Table 5-9 displays customer counts for
customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure installations) and identifies
measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis. Additional detail for this billing analysis is
provided in Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results.

Evaluation Report 104

Table 5-9: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Smart Thermostats
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
Smart Thermostats – Aggregate ✓ 411 ✓
Smart Thermostats – Self-Installed ✓ 230 ✓
Smart Thermostats – Contractor-Installed ✓ 181 ✓
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level energy savings by installation type for smart
thermostat installs through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via
propensity score matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. In doing so, the
Evaluators also isolate the measure effects using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 30 customers with single-measure
installations. This restriction was met by each the self-installed thermostats and contractor-installed
thermostats. Therefore, the Evaluators continued with regression analysis for each measure group. This
ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g.
sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in PY2018, PY2019, and
PY2020 in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon. The Evaluators
used nearest neighbor matching with a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was
matched to 5 similar control customers. The final number of customers in each the treatment and
control group are listed in Table 5-10.
The Evaluators performed t-tests on pre-period usage by month to determine the success of PSM. The t-
tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure in each Heating Zone. T-tests of monthly pre
period usage can yield a statistically significant difference 40% of the time for one to two months out of
12. Thus, the Evaluators set a tolerance band allowing two months out of 12 to vary in pre-period usage
at the 95% confidence level. All three groups passed this threshold, indicating the groups were well
matched on all included covariates.
Table 5-10 provides annual savings per customer. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as the final model for the
measure as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression models. The adjusted R-
squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data of nearly 0.78 and above. Savings are
statistically significant at the 90% level for the aggregate and self-installed groups. However, the
Evaluators were unable to estimate statistically significant savings for the self-installed smart
thermostats.

Evaluation Report 105

Table 5-10: Estimated Savings, Smart Thermostats, by Install Type
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
kWh
Savings
per
Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
Smart Thermostats –
Aggregate 195 975 229 59 399 0.78 Model
2: PPR
Smart Thermostats –
Self-Installed 133 665 29* -256 468 0.80 Model
2: PPR
Smart Thermostats –
Contractor-Installed 62 310 470 124 818 0.78 Model
2: PPR
*Not statistically significant
The self-installed smart thermostats are unable to be quantified with current data, as indicated by the
lower and upper 90% confidence interval estimates. These lower and upper 90% confidence interval
displays savings range between negative and positive values, indicating that consumption differences
between the treatment and control group do not reject the null hypothesis of 0. Therefore, the
Evaluators are unable to provide savings estimate for this group of smart thermostats.
Although the self-installed smart thermostats cannot be quantified, the relative differences between the
aggregate of smart thermostats and the contractor-installed smart thermostats provides insights on
relative impacts between each group.
The billing regression results indicate that the contractor-installed smart thermostats saved 470 kWh
per year, while the thermostats regardless of installation type saved 229 kWh per year. Each of these
estimates are statistically significant and are derived from models with high fitness to the data. This
indicates that contractor-installed thermostats save over double the amount of energy than the
aggregate of smart thermostats.
The goal of this additional research objective is to identify if the contractor-installed smart thermostats
save additional energy compared to the self-installed smart thermostats. Although self-installed
thermostat energy savings are unable to be quantified, the results of the billing analysis for the
aggregate and the contractor-installed groups confirm that the smart thermostats display significantly
higher savings in the contractor-installed projects.
The RTF provides UES values for smart thermostats of between 434 kWh to 1143 kWh per unit,
depending on heating zone. The results of the billing analysis for contractor-installs provide magnitudes
similar to the RTF-provided savings for this measure. The Evaluators recommend continuing to use RTF
UES values for this measure revisiting billing analysis to quantify differences between installation type
once increased participation in a program year is achieved for self-installed projects.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators summarize the conclusions and recommendations for the smart thermostat measure
research efforts:
◼ Conclusion: The customers who had self-installed the smart thermostat with a heat pump indicate
little knowledge about the proper installation practices and had not adjusted auxiliary heat
settings or compressor lockout settings with respect to the settings from their heat pump. Instead,
the majority of self-install customers with heat pump systems had installed the smart thermostat

Evaluation Report 106

to the default settings provided by the manufacturer. In contrast, the contractor-installed smart
thermostats are installed to meet the proper auxiliary and compressor lockout settings with
respect to the household’s heat pump equipment settings. This research indicates that the self-
installed smart thermostats may not be meeting the full potential of energy savings due to the
oversight of these additional energy-saving settings.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend that IPC provide instructional education
or requirements for self-installed smart thermostats rebated through the program. The
Evaluators recommend IPC explore options for changing incentive levels for self-installed
vs. contractor-installed smart thermostats to further incentivize customers to have their
equipment properly installed to their heating equipment.
◼ Conclusion: Customers with smart thermostats find value in keeping their homes at a comfortable
temperature. Additionally, customers use energy-saving features available to them to save energy
when they are not home.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that the contractor-installed smart thermostats saved more
energy than the self-installed smart thermostats. The Evaluators were unable to estimate savings
for the self-installed smart thermostats, however, the contractor-installed smart thermostats
saved 470 kWh per year while the aggregate of contractor-installed and self-installed smart
thermostats saved 229 kWh per year.
◼ Recommendation: The Evaluators recommend continuing to use the RTF-approved
Connected Thermostat workbook to evaluate savings for this measure. The Evaluators
also recommend revisiting billing analysis when additional self-installed thermostat
projects are completed and available to use in further analyses.

Evaluation Report 107

6. Appendix A: Billing Analysis Results
This appendix provides additional details on the billing analyses conducted for each program.
6.1 ASHP Upgrade with PTCS Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the air source heat pump upgrade measure is provided in this
section. The methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.5.5. Table 6-1 displays
customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure
installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 6-1: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, ASHP Upgrades with PTCS
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF with PTCS
standards
✓ 72 ✓
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level energy savings through billing analysis regression
with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate
each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects using the customer’s
consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 30 customers with single-measure
installations. This restriction was not met by the air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 3.
Therefore, the Evaluators continued with regression analysis for Heating Zones 1 and 2. This ensured
that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g. sufficient
pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in PY2018, PY2019, and PY2020 in
order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
6-2. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 3 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each
treatment customer was matched to 3 similar control customers. Also shown in Table 6-2, are the
impact of various restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in
the final regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available
prior to applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after
applying data restrictions and final matching.

Evaluation Report 108

Table 6-2: Cohort Restrictions, ASHP Upgrades with PTCS
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Air-Source Heat
Pump to Air-
Source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF with PTCS
standards
Starting Count 72 7,003
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 65 7,003
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 62 6,960
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 45 6,872
Subset nonparticipants to heat pump heating type 45 1,652
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 24 72
The number of participants available for analysis drops significantly after removing customers without 6
months of pre-period data and 6 months of post-period data, in addition to removing customers who
had not displayed pre-period billing data in each of the 4 pre-period seasons: spring, summer, fall, and
winter, which were used in propensity score matching. However, the Evaluators ensured the 24 final
treatment group sample was representative of the original 65 participants for the measure based on
Heating Zone distribution, HSPF values, and SEER values for the equipment installed.
Figure 6-1 displays the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for the air source
heat pump upgrade measure after conducting matching.

Evaluation Report 109

Figure 6-1: Covariate Balance After Matching, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS

The distributions after matching closely overlap between the treatment and control groups in the
summer, however, the remaining seasons display more sparse matches for median household usage.
Nonetheless, the t-tests provide display sufficient matches for the measure, indicating valid matches for
the selected treatment and control groups.
The Evaluators performed t-tests on pre-period usage by month to determine the success of PSM. The t-
tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure in each Heating Zone. T-tests of monthly pre
period usage can yield a statistically significant difference 40% of the time for one to two months out of
12. Thus, the Evaluators set a tolerance band allowing two months out of 12 to vary in pre-period usage
at the 95% confidence level. The groups for this measure passed this threshold, indicating the groups
were well matched on all included covariates.
Table 6-3 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment and control groups
after matching for the air source heat pump upgrades. The Evaluators placed a threshold of two rejects
for each measure as there is a 40% likelihood that one or two months may show statistical variance due
to chance. The air source heat pump upgrades displayed no months in which the null hypothesis is
rejected. In addition, the monthly matches display strong matches, with the majority of months p-values
surpassing 0.7, indicating small differences between the treatment and control group.

Evaluation Report 110

Table 6-3: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 86.34 85.61 0.92 No
Feb 88.22 84.55 0.64 No
Mar 69.33 66.85 0.68 No
Apr 48.49 48.60 0.98 No
May 39.98 41.49 0.68 No
Jun 42.49 43.22 0.87 No
Jul 49.89 48.78 0.85 No
Aug 50.53 51.82 0.84 No
Sep 44.71 46.52 0.69 No
Oct 59.58 57.48 0.73 No
Nov 75.29 70.35 0.46 No
Dec 85.49 89.46 0.52 No
Table 6-4 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned Heating
Zone for the measure. In addition, weighted TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY weather
station is provided. The HDD and CDD was weighted by the number of treatment customers assigned to
a weather station.
Table 6-4: TMY Weather, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS
Measure Treatment
Customers
Weighted
HDD
Weighted
CDD
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-
Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF
with PTCS standards
72 6,335 994

Table 6-5 provides annual savings per customer for the air source heat pump upgrades with PTCS
commissioning. Model 1 (D-n-D) was selected as the final model for the measure as it provided the
highest adjusted R-squared among the regression models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90%
level. The adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data (0.79).
Table 6-5: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Upgrades with PTCS
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
kWh
Savings per
Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
Air-Source Heat Pump
to Air-Source Heat
Pump: 8.5 HSPF with
PTCS standards
24 72 1,263 198 2,328 0.79 Model
1: D-n-D

Evaluation Report 111

The goal of this additional research objective is to attempt to quantify incremental savings for PTCS
commissioning efforts achieved by IPC and the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.
These results indicate that savings for air source heat pump upgrade measure with PTCS standards in
the program achieve 1,263 kWh savings per year. The Evaluators are unable to separate the estimated
savings between the air source heat pump upgrade savings from the equipment component and the air
source heat pump upgrade savings from the PTCS commissioning component. However, the results of
the billing analysis indicate that observed savings from this measure for participants in the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program are significantly higher than currently estimated by the RTF.
6.2 ASHP Conversion HZ2/HZ3 Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the air source heat pump conversion measure is provided in this
section. The methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.5.5. Table 6-6 displays
customer counts for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure
installations) and identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 6-6: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions
Measure Heating
Zone
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
Electric Heating System to Air-Source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF
1 ✓ 65 ✓
2 ✓ 34 ✓
3 10
2/3 ✓ 44 ✓
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level energy savings by Heating Zone through billing
analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via propensity score matching. The Evaluators
attempted to isolate each unique measure. In doing so, the Evaluators also isolate the measure effects
using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 30 customers with single-measure
installations. This restriction was not met by the air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 3.
However, the Evaluators attempted to estimate a savings value for the aggregate of projects installed in
Heating Zones 2 and 3, as sufficient participation exists for this group.
Therefore, the Evaluators continued with regression analysis for Heating Zones 1, 2, and 2/3. This
ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g.
sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in PY2018, PY2019, and
PY2020 in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
6-7 through Table 6-9 for each Heating Zone. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with a 3 to
1 matching ratio to match on pre-period spring, summer, winter, and fall usage, as well as exact
matching for Heating Zones between groups. Therefore, each treatment customer was matched to 3
similar control customers. Also shown in Table 6-7 through Table 6-9, are the impact of various
restrictions on the number of treatment and control customers that were included in the final

Evaluation Report 112

regression model. The “Starting Count” displays the beginning number of customers available prior to
applying the data restrictions, while the “Ending Count” displays the number of customers after applying
data restrictions and final matching.
Table 6-7: Cohort Restrictions, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ1
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Electric Heating
System to Air-
Source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF, HZ1
Starting Count 65 5,325
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 65 5,325
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 65 5,304
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 47 5,268
Subset nonparticipants to ER heating type 65 647
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 36 105
Table 6-8: Cohort Restrictions, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ2
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Electric Heating
System to Air-
Source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF, HZ2
Starting Count 34 1,003
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 34 1,003
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 34 996
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 22 981
Subset nonparticipants to ER heating type 34 229
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 18 54
Table 6-9: Cohort Restrictions, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions in HZ2/HZ3
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Electric Heating
System to Air-
Source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF, HZ2
Starting Count 44 1,678
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 44 1,678
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 44 1,678
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 31 1,596
Subset nonparticipants to ER heating type 31 239
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 23 61
Figure 6-2 displays the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching for the air source
heat pump conversion measure after conducting matching.

Evaluation Report 113

Figure 6-2: Covariate Balance After Matching, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions

The distributions after matching closely overlap between the treatment and control groups in pre-period
summer and winter, however, the shoulder season usage in the spring and fall display more sparse
matches. Nonetheless, the t-tests provide display sufficient matches for each Heating Zone, indicating
valid matches for the selected treatment and control groups.
The Evaluators performed t-tests on pre-period usage by month to determine the success of PSM. The t-
tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure in each Heating Zone. T-tests of monthly pre
period usage can yield a statistically significant difference 40% of the time for one to two months out of
12. Thus, the Evaluators set a tolerance band allowing two months out of 12 to vary in pre-period usage
at the 95% confidence level. Both Heating Zone groups passed this threshold, indicating the groups were
well matched on all included covariates.
Table 6-10 through Table 6-12 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment
and control groups after matching for Heating Zones 1 and 2 for the air source heat pump conversions.
The Evaluators placed a threshold of two rejects for each measure as there is a 40% likelihood that one
or two months may show statistical variance due to chance. The air source heat pump conversions for
both Heating Zones displayed no months in which the null hypothesis is rejected.

Evaluation Report 114

Table 6-10: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Conversions, HZ1
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 77.13 74.74 0.70 No
Feb 75.97 75.37 0.92 No
Mar 59.20 58.85 0.94 No
Apr 40.22 40.10 0.97 No
May 34.13 34.22 0.97 No
Jun 37.15 37.37 0.93 No
Jul 44.27 44.59 0.92 No
Aug 44.02 42.99 0.75 No
Sep 36.74 35.49 0.67 No
Oct 44.47 44.00 0.91 No
Nov 60.17 66.33 0.30 No
Dec 72.01 75.39 0.51 No

Table 6-11: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Conversions, HZ2
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 87.04 92.60 0.61 No
Feb 85.09 85.97 0.93 No
Mar 69.45 68.59 0.91 No
Apr 44.80 43.18 0.76 No
May 32.34 32.72 0.92 No
Jun 30.53 29.99 0.90 No
Jul 34.53 35.64 0.84 No
Aug 35.24 29.95 0.30 No
Sep 31.83 26.85 0.27 No
Oct 47.24 41.68 0.35 No
Nov 62.77 69.24 0.43 No
Dec 83.67 93.55 0.25 No

Evaluation Report 115

Table 6-12: Pre-period Usage T-test for Air Source Heat Pump Conversions, HZ2/HZ3
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 84.04 87.14 0.76 No
Feb 82.40 81.44 0.92 No
Mar 67.65 64.95 0.71 No
Apr 44.12 41.18 0.55 No
May 31.64 31.77 0.97 No
Jun 29.14 28.56 0.87 No
Jul 33.01 33.13 0.98 No
Aug 33.37 28.60 0.27 No
Sep 30.57 26.80 0.31 No
Oct 45.36 40.40 0.34 No
Nov 59.96 64.22 0.57 No
Dec 80.51 85.38 0.53 No
Table 6-13 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned Heating
Zone for each measure. In addition, weighted TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY
weather station is provided. The HDD and CDD was weighted by the number of treatment customers
assigned to a weather station.
Table 6-13: TMY Weather, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions
Measure HZ Treatment
Customers
Weighted
HDD
Weighted
CDD
Electric Heating System to
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5
HSPF
1 65 6,094 1,019
2 34 6,696 956
2/3 44 6,935 925
Table 6-14 provides annual savings per customer for each Heating Zone. Model 1 (D-n-D) was selected
as the final model for the measure as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
models. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level Heating Zones 1, 2, and 2/3. The adjusted R-
squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data of 0.7 and above.

Evaluation Report 116

Table 6-14: Estimated Savings, Air Source Heat Pump Conversions
Heating
Zone
Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
kWh
Savings per
Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
1 36 105 1,513 715 2,312 0.73 Model 1:
D-n-D
2 18 54 2,609 1,289 3,929 0.79 Model 1:
D-n-D
2/3 23 61 2,029 830 3,228 0.79 Model 1:
D-n-D
The Evaluators were unable to complete the regression analysis for Heating Zone 3 due to low
participation. However, the Evaluators provide statistically significant savings for Heating Zones 1 and 2.
Although Heating Zone 3 energy savings are unable to be quantified, the results of the billing analysis for
Heating Zones 1 and 2 confirm that the air source heat pump conversions display significantly higher
savings in the colder regions (Heating Zone 2).
Annual energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 1 totals 1,513 kWh per year
while annual energy savings for the measure in Heating Zone 2 totals 2,609 kWh per year. These results
indicate that savings for air source heat pump conversion measures in Heating Zone 2 are, on average,
58% higher than energy savings for air source heat pump conversions in Heating Zone 1.
6.3 Smart Thermostat Billing Analysis
The results of the billing analysis for the smart thermostat measure is provided in this section. The
methodology for the billing analysis is provided in Section 2.2.5.5. Table 6-15 displays customer counts
for customers considered for billing analysis (i.e. customer with single-measure installations) and
identifies measures that met the requirements for a billing analysis.
Table 6-15: Measures Considered for Billing Analysis, Smart Thermostats
Measure
Measure
Considered for
Billing Analysis
Number of
Customers w/
Isolated-Measure
Installations
Sufficient
Participation
for Billing
Analysis
Smart Thermostats – Aggregate ✓ 411 ✓
Smart Thermostats – Self-Installed ✓ 230 ✓
Smart Thermostats – Contractor-Installed ✓ 181 ✓
The Evaluators attempted to estimate measure-level energy savings by installation type for smart
thermostat installs through billing analysis regression with a counterfactual group selected via
propensity score matching. The Evaluators attempted to isolate each unique measure. In doing so, the
Evaluators also isolate the measure effects using the customer’s consumption billing data.
A billing analysis was completed for measures that had at least 30 customers with single-measure
installations. This restriction was met by each the self-installed thermostats and contractor-installed
thermostats. Therefore, the Evaluators continued with regression analysis for each measure group. This
ensured that measures would have a sufficient sample size after applying PSM data restrictions (e.g.

Evaluation Report 117

sufficient pre- and post-period data). The billing analysis included participants in PY2018, PY2019, and
PY2020 in order to acquire the maximum number of customers possible.
The Evaluators were provided a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table
6-16 through Table 6-18 for each installation type. The Evaluators used nearest neighbor matching with
a 5 to 1 matching ratio. Therefore, each treatment customer was matched to 5 similar control
customers. Also shown in the tables below are the impact of various restrictions on the number of
treatment and control customers that were included in the final regression model. The “Starting Count”
displays the beginning number of customers available prior to applying the data restrictions, while the
“Ending Count” displays the number of customers after applying data restrictions and final matching.
Table 6-16: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats, Aggregated
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Smart Thermostats
– Aggregate
Starting Count 411 7,003
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 401 7,003
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 395 6,958
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 309 6,867
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 195 975
Table 6-17: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats, Self-Installed
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Smart Thermostats
– Self-Installed
Starting Count 230 7,003
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 229 7,003
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 228 6,958
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 196 6,867
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 133 665
Table 6-18: Cohort Restrictions, Smart Thermostats, Contractor-Installed
Measure Data Restriction Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Smart Thermostats
– Contractor-
Installed
Starting Count 181 7,003
Install Date Range: 2018-11-01 to 2021-12-31 172 7,003
Remove bills with insufficient data (< 10 days duration and 0
kWh usage) 167 6,958
Incomplete Pre-Period and Post-Period Bills (<6 months each) 113 6,867
Ending Count (Matched by PSM) 62 310
The number of participants available for analysis drops significantly after removing customers without 6
months of pre-period data and 6 months of post-period data, in addition to removing customers who
had not displayed pre-period billing data in each of the 4 pre-period seasons: spring, summer, fall, and
winter, which were used in propensity score matching. However, the Evaluators ensured the final
treatment group sample was representative of the original group of participants for the measure.

Evaluation Report 118

Figure 6-3 through Figure 6-5 displays the density of each variable employed in propensity score matching
for the smart thermostat measure after conducting matching, for each installation type.
Figure 6-3: Covariate Balance After Matching, Smart Thermostats, Aggregate

Evaluation Report 119

Figure 6-4: Covariate Balance After Matching, Smart Thermostats, Self-Installed

Evaluation Report 120

Figure 6-5: Covariate Balance After Matching, Smart Thermostats, Contractor-Installed

The distributions after matching closely overlap between the treatment and control groups in pre-period
for all seasons. The contractor-installed matched control group displays slightly higher densities in the
median daily usage for each season. Nonetheless, the t-tests provide display sufficient matches for each
installation type, indicating valid matches for the selected treatment and control groups.
The Evaluators performed t-tests on pre-period usage by month to determine the success of PSM. The t-
tests confirmed that PSM performed well for the measure in each Heating Zone. T-tests of monthly pre
period usage can yield a statistically significant difference 40% of the time for one to two months out of
12. Thus, the Evaluators set a tolerance band allowing two months out of 12 to vary in pre-period usage
at the 95% confidence level. All three groups passed this threshold, indicating the groups were well
matched on all included covariates.
Table 6-19 through Table 6-21 provides results for the t-test on pre-period usage between the treatment
and control groups after matching for each installation type for the smart thermostat measure. The
Evaluators placed a threshold of two rejects for each measure as there is a 40% likelihood that one or
two months may show statistical variance due to chance. The smart thermostat measure for all
installation types displayed no months in which the null hypothesis is rejected.

Evaluation Report 121

Table 6-19: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostats, Aggregate
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 40.97 42.37 0.57 No
Feb 39.18 41.28 0.40 No
Mar 33.07 35.00 0.33 No
Apr 26.81 27.39 0.65 No
May 26.65 26.57 0.94 No
Jun 32.28 33.41 0.39 No
Jul 40.59 41.93 0.41 No
Aug 40.92 41.35 0.78 No
Sep 31.12 31.50 0.75 No
Oct 29.96 31.74 0.27 No
Nov 35.25 38.52 0.12 No
Dec 42.10 45.99 0.15 No

Table 6-20: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostats, Self-Installed
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 35.02 36.68 0.55 No
Feb 34.00 35.68 0.55 No
Mar 28.68 30.96 0.31 No
Apr 24.07 24.99 0.52 No
May 24.93 25.04 0.93 No
Jun 30.87 31.58 0.63 No
Jul 39.54 40.44 0.63 No
Aug 39.73 40.98 0.50 No
Sep 29.69 29.96 0.84 No
Oct 26.73 27.95 0.46 No
Nov 30.55 33.40 0.22 No
Dec 36.09 40.56 0.17 No

Evaluation Report 122

Table 6-21: Pre-period Usage T-test for Smart Thermostats, Contractor-Installed
Month
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Control
Average Daily
Usage (kWh),
Treatment
P-Value Reject
Null?
Jan 51.95 54.30 0.61 No
Feb 50.33 53.09 0.56 No
Mar 41.97 43.59 0.67 No
Apr 32.25 32.55 0.90 No
May 29.96 30.19 0.92 No
Jun 34.59 36.50 0.45 No
Jul 42.14 44.53 0.44 No
Aug 42.35 41.99 0.90 No
Sep 34.66 34.32 0.89 No
Oct 37.17 38.87 0.60 No
Nov 45.12 48.76 0.38 No
Dec 52.51 56.45 0.41 No
Table 6-22 provides customer counts for customers in the final regression model by assigned Heating
Zone for each measure. In addition, weighted TMY HDD and CDD from the nearest available TMY
weather station is provided. The HDD and CDD was weighted by the number of treatment customers
assigned to a weather station. All three treatment groups displayed similar weighted HDD and CDD
values.
Table 6-22: TMY Weather, Smart Thermostats, by Install Type
Measure Treatment
Customers
Weighted
HDD
Weighted
CDD
Smart Thermostats - Aggregate 413 6,366 992
Smart Thermostats – Self-Installed 231 6,389 990
Smart Thermostats – Contractor-Installed 182 6,336 993

Table 6-23 provides annual savings per customer for each Heating Zone. Model 2 (PPR) was selected as
the final model for the measure as it provided the highest adjusted R-squared among the regression
models. The adjusted R-squared shows the model provided an excellent fit for the data of nearly 0.78
and above. Savings are statistically significant at the 90% level for the aggregate and self-installed
groups. However, the Evaluators were unable to estimate statistically significant savings for the self-
installed smart thermostats.

Evaluation Report 123

Table 6-23: Estimated Savings, Smart Thermostats, by Install Type
Measure Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Annual
kWh
Savings
per
Customer
90%
Lower
CI
90%
Upper
CI
Adjusted
R-
Squared
Model
Smart Thermostats –
Aggregate 195 975 229 59 399 0.78 Model
2: PPR
Smart Thermostats –
Self-Installed 133 665 29* -256 468 0.80 Model
2: PPR
Smart Thermostats –
Contractor-Installed 62 310 470 124 818 0.78 Model
2: PPR
*Not statistically significant
The self-installed smart thermostats are unable to be quantified with current data, as indicated by the
lower and upper 90% confidence interval estimates. These lower and upper 90% confidence interval
displays savings range between negative and positive values, indicating that consumption differences
between the treatment and control group do not reject the null hypothesis of 0. Therefore, the
Evaluators are unable to provide savings estimate for this group of smart thermostats.
Although the self-installed smart thermostats cannot be quantified, the relative differences between the
aggregate of smart thermostats and the contractor-installed smart thermostats provides insights on
relative impacts between each group.
The billing regression results indicate that the contractor-installed smart thermostats saved 470 kWh
per year, while the thermostats regardless of installation type saved 229 kWh per year. Each of these
estimates are statistically significant and are derived from models with high fitness to the data. This
indicates that contractor-installed thermostats save over double the amount of energy than the
aggregate of smart thermostats.

Evaluation Report 124

7. Appendix B: Residential Participant Survey
This section provides a copy of the residential survey sent to participants of the Heating & Cooling
Efficiency Program in 2020.

Evaluation Report 125

Evaluation Report 126

Evaluation Report 127

Evaluation Report 128

Evaluation Report 129

Evaluation Report 130

Evaluation Report 131

Evaluation Report 132

Evaluation Report 133

Evaluation Report 134

Evaluation Report 135

Evaluation Report 136

Evaluation Report 137

Evaluation Report 138

Evaluation Report 139

Evaluation Report 140

Evaluation Report 141

Evaluation Report 142

8. Appendix C: Participating Contractor Interview
Guide
This section provides a copy of the interview guide used to interview participating contractors about
their experience with the Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program.

Evaluation Report 143

Evaluation Report 144

Evaluation Report 145

Evaluation Report 146

Evaluation Report 147

Evaluation Report 148

Evaluation Report 149

Evaluation Report 150

Evaluation Report 151

Evaluation Report 152

Evaluation Report 153

Evaluation Report 154

Evaluation Report 155

Evaluation Report 156

Evaluation Report 157

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report Page 569
OTHER REPORTS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2021 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Historical DSM Expense and Performance,
2002–2021
Residential,
Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Home Energy Reports Summary Residential Harris Utility
Consumer
Analytics
Harris Utility
Consumer
Analytics
Other
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-Saving Kit
Program Summary Report 2021
Commercial/Industrial AM
Conservation
Group
AM
Conservation
Group
Other
Idaho Power Energywise Program Summary
Report 2020-2021
Residential AM
Conservation
Group
AM
Conservation
Group
Other

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 570 Demand-Side Management 2021 Annual Report

January 10, 2022

2021 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report

Flex Peak Program Report Page i
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Background ......................................................................................................................................1
Program Details .........................................................................................................................2
Program Incentives ....................................................................................................................3
Program Results ...............................................................................................................................3
Participation ...............................................................................................................................4
Operations ..................................................................................................................................8
Load Reduction Analysis ...........................................................................................................8
Program Costs ..........................................................................................................................14
Benefit-Cost Analysis ..............................................................................................................14
Program Marketing ........................................................................................................................15
Program Activities for 2022...........................................................................................................16
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................16

Idaho Power
Page ii Flex Peak Program Report
List of Tables
Table 1. 2021 Incentive Structure. ........................................................................... 3
Table 2. Realization Rate per Event - 2021. ............................................................ 9
Table 3. Realization Rate per Participant for Each Event - 2021. .......................... 11
Table 4. Annual Program Costs - 2021. ................................................................. 13

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power Service Area ......................................................................... 5
Figure 2. 2021 Site Participation by Region Based on Nomination ........................... 6
Figure 3. 2021 Site Participation by Business Type Based on Nomination ............... 7
Figure 4. Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW) ............................................... 9
Figure 5. Average Versus Max Reduction Achieved per Event .............................. 10
Figure 6. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class ..................... 13

Idaho Power Company
2021 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 2021 Program season, the Company’s seventh year of operating the Program. In its seventh year, the Program had an increase in load reduction and realization rates from the prior year (2020). There was
one new site added, and overall participation resulted in the highest hourly load
reduction for the season of 30.6 megawatts (MW). The average realization rate for the five load reduction events that occurred in the 2021 Program season was 78%. Enrollment in the Program decreased slightly for the 2021 Program season and 99% of previously participating sites re-enrolled in the Program. The total Program costs
through December 31, 2021 were $501,973. The cost of having this resource available
was $16.40 per kilowatt (kW) based on the maximum demand reduction of 30.6 MW achieved on June 28, 2021. The maximum capacity for the program in 2021 was 36 MWs as that was the highest nomination during the program season and event results in the past have sometimes showed that reduction can sometimes meet or exceed
nominations.
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-

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 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
of-season report detailing the results of the Program. In compliance with the reporting requirements, the annual end-of-season report includes the following:
• Number of participating customers
• Number of participating sites
• MW of demand response under contract
• MW of demand response realized and incented per dispatch
• Percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by participant
• Cost analysis of the Program
• Number of events called
• Total load dropped for each event
• Event duration
• Total capacity payments made
• Total energy payments made
• Number of customers who failed to meet their load
• Number of Program applications denied due to Program subscription limit
• 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.

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
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 3
• Idaho Power will provide notification to participants two hours prior to the initiation of an event.
• If prior notice of a load reduction event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose to cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the start of the event.
Program Incentives
The Program includes both a fixed and variable incentive payment. The fixed incentive is calculated by multiplying the actual kW reduction by $3.25 for weeks when an event
is called or the weekly nominated kW amount by $3.25 for weeks when an event is not called. The variable energy incentive is calculated by multiplying the kW reduction by the event duration hours to achieve the total kilowatt-hour (kWh) reduction during an event. The variable incentive payment is $0.16 per kWh and is implemented for events that occur after the first three events.
The Program also includes an incentive adjustment of $2.00 when participants do not achieve their nominated amount during load reduction events. This adjustment amount is used for the first three events. After the third event, the adjustment is reduced to $0.25 per kW. Incentives are calculated using Idaho Power’s interval metering billing
data and participants 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 2021 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 five load reduction events in 2021. This was the first Summer since the Settlement agreement in 2014 that the program has called more than the three minimum events which occurred back in 2012. The first
event occurred on June 28, the second on July 16, the third on July 26, the fourth on
July 29 and the fifth on August 12. The maximum realization rate achieved during the season was 106% during the event on June 28 and the average for all five events combined was 78%. The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction achieved
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
versus the amount of load reduction committed for an event. The highest hourly load reduction achieved was during the June 28 event at 30.6 MW.
Participants had a committed load reduction of 36 MW in the first week of the Program
season. This was a small increase from the 2020 season at 35.8 MW. This weekly
commitment, or “nomination”, was comprised of customers participating in the Program totaling 139 sites. All but one of these sites participated in the 2020 season. The committed load reduction at the end of the season was 29.7 MW. The maximum available capacity of the program came from a nominated amount in week one at
36MW. Past years certain events have achieved higher than a 100% realization rate
which would make this the maximum potential available capacity for the program.
The first event was called on Monday, June 28. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 28.9 MW. The average load reduction was 28.9 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 30.6 MW
during hour two. The realization rate for this event was 100%.
The second event was called on Friday, July 16. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 30.1 MW. The average load reduction was 20.4 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 22.6 MW during hour two. The realization rate for this event was 68%.
The third event was called on Monday, July 26. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a
four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 28.2 MW. The average load reduction was 18.3 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 20.3 MW during hour two. The realization rate for this event was 65%.
The fourth event was called on Thursday, July 29. Participants were notified at 2 p.m.
for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 28.2 MW.
The average load reduction was 21 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 23.1 MW during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 75%.
The fifth event was called on Thursday, August 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 29.7 MW.
The average load reduction was 24.5 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 25.8
MW during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 83%.
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 5.6 MW and achieved a maximum reduction during the season of 11.6 MW during hour
one on the August 12 event.
Participation
The number of sites enrolled in the Program for 2021 was 139 from 61 participants. 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 138 of
Idaho Power Company
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 5
the 139 sites participating from the prior season re-enrolled. Two sites did not re-enroll from the 2020 season. Both these sites came from the same customer and the demand for their product was overwhelming and they could not continue in the demand
response program. There were additionally two mores from another customer that
disenrolled midway through the 2021 season due to excessive pressures on their business which kept them from curtailing when events were called.
This past season Idaho Power continued the auto-enrollment option where existing participants were re-enrolled in the Program automatically and a confirmation packet
was mailed 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 process has proven to be successful, and the Company anticipates utilizing this process in the future.
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 2020 season with the largest quantity of sites falling within both the 0-50 kW and 51-200 kW segments. The Company did not deny any Program applications in 2021.
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).

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 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 1.

Figure 2 represents the enrolled capacity (total nominations) that were enrolled in 2021
and the distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2.

Idaho Power Company
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 7

Figure 3 represents the enrolled capacity in 2021 and the diversity based on business
type.
Figure 3.
Canyon
7%
Capital
31%
South-East
12%
Southern
30%
Canyon-West
21%
2021 Participation by Region (and sub areas)
based on Nomination
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2021 Flex Peak Program Report

Operations
Interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view all participants’ load after
events. This metering data was used to calculate the reduction achieved per site during
load reduction events. Using this data, Idaho Power provided participants post-event usage reports that showed hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction during an event. 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.
Load Reduction Analysis
An evaluation of the potential load reduction impacts in 2021 was conducted by a third party- Tetra Tech. The goal of the review was to calculate the load reduction in MW for the Program. The analysis also verified load reduction per site and per event as well as realization rate.
The baseline methodology used in 2021 is the same methodology utilized in prior
seasons. The baseline that reductions are measured against during load reduction
Agriculture
5%Commercial Property
9%
Other
9%
Education
5%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
12%
Water & Wastewater
Treatment Facility
15%
Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
16%
Light Industrial
7%
Food Processing
22%
2021 Participation by Business Type based on
Nomination
Idaho Power Company
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 9
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% 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.
As Figure 4 below depicts, the nomination group with the most sites was in the 0-50 kW and 51-200 kW range, accounting for approximately 75% of the sites.
Figure 4.

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)
2021
2020
8
52
9
27
52
26
54 52
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
Table 2 shows the Program realization rates for 2021 based on average load reduction per event.
Table 2.

Curtailment Event Event Timeframe Nominated Demand Reduction Average Demand Reduction (MW)
Max Demand Reduction (MW)
Realization Rate*
June 28 4-8 pm 28.9 28.9 30.6 100%
July 16 4-8 pm 30.1 20.4 22.6 68%
July 26 4-8 pm 28.2 18.3 20.3 65%
July 29 4-8 pm 28.2 21 23.1 75%
August 12 4-8 pm 29.7 24.5 25.8 83%
Average 29 22.6 24.5 78%
* Based on average reduction

Figure 5 below shows both the average and peak demand reduction achieved during each of the five curtailment events. The maximum demand reduction achieved ranged
from a low of 20.3 MW for the July 26 event to a high of 30.6 MW for the June 28 event.
The July 26 event’s average of 18.3 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 65%, while the July 26 event’s average of 28.9 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 100%. Combined, the five events had an average realization rate of 78%.
Event performance and realization rates for the 2021 season were somewhat reduced
due to the impact of COVID-19 on customer’s operations and ability to reduce load but
not near as significant as 2020 results. Typically, we achieve a realization rate of 85% in past seasons. COVID19 has changed the operations of some businesses and this will have an ongoing effect on how businesses can curtail load. Additionally, this was the first season in seven years that had more than three events called which could have
also had an impact on customers operations. More events may have resulted in some
participants being less able to participate in all events as the season progressed.
Figure 5.
Idaho Power Company
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 11

Table 3 shows the realization rate for each participant in the Program for 2021. Idaho Power headquarters location not included. Table 3.

Participant
Number
June 28
Event
Realization
July 16
Event
Realization
July 26
Event
Realization
July 29
Event
Realization
August 12
Event
Realization
Season
Realization
1 53% 30% 104% 69% 0% 51%
2 29% 6% 16% 3% 29% 16%
3 41% 26% 56% 45% 101% 54%
4 58% 67% 87% 42% 0% 51%
5 127% 75% 73% 87% 190% 110%
6 43% 19% 0% 12% 6% 16%
7 Opted out 124% 93% 118% 132% 117%
8 20% 24% 45% 30% 70% 38%
9 80% 150% 104% 110% 141% 117%
10 105% 132% 117% 33% 75% 92%
11 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
12 71% 71% 84% 68% 49% 69%
13 9% 16% 3% 53% 38% 24%
14 65% 53% 46% 39% 26% 46%
15 0% 0% 1% 0% 72% 15%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
June 28th July 16th July 26th July 29th August 12th
Me
g
a
w
a
t
t
s

(
M
W
)
Event Date
Average & Max Reduction Achieved per Event
Average Demand Reduction Max Demand Reduction
28.9 30.6
20.4 22.6 18.3 20.3
21.0 23.1
24.5 25.8
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
16 17% 0% 14% 11% 14% 11%
17 410% 333% 167% 59% 0% 194%
18 150% 168% 193% 32% 0% 109%
19 199% 207% 238% 272% 188% 221%
20 14% 55% 42% 38% 46% 39%
21 14% 8% 1% 16% 86% 25%
22 104% 128% 0% 0% 148% 76%
23 0% 1% 0% 2% 4% 2%
24 28% 13% 36% 40% 33% 30%
25 111% 38% 0% 0% 1% 30%
26 81% 36% 41% 4% 0% 32%
27 98% 16% 14% 14% 6% 29%
28 44% 56% 35% 54% 48% 48%
29 0% 0% 24% 233% 80% 67%
30 186% 280% 10% 128% 210% 163%
31 49% 0% 114% 158% 32% 71%
32 109% 112% 121% 107% 91% 108%
33 2573% 654% 335% 216% 69% 769%
34 58% 0% 0% 53% 7% 24%
35 6% 10% 5% 33% 2% 11%
36 77% 52% 70% 75% 124% 90%
37 42% 12% 95% 651% 35% 167%
38 34% 0% 5% 4% 148% 38%
39 36% 71% 0% 30% 0% 27%
40 211% 18% 53% 53% 50% 77%
41 0% 37% 210% 139% 112% 100%
42 53% 9% 9% 69% 47% 37%
43 13% 8% 7% 6% 9% 9%
44 0% 236% 153% 118% 0% 101%
45 11% 56% 55% 42% 29% 39%
46 206% 100% 1% 27% 86% 84%
47 27% 7% 5% 1% 0% 8%
48 87% 319% 88% 0% 23% 103%
49 89% 52% 56% 95% 86% 76%
50 147% 81% Opted out Opted out 10% 80%
51 1% 11% Disenrolled Disenrolled Disenrolled 6%
52 41% 25% 43% 36% 36% 36%
53 29% 13% 21% 7% 40% 22%
54 138% 109% 114% 1% 124% 97%
55 85% 95% 128% 120% 81% 102%
56 105% 90% 133% 157% 115% 120%
57 57% 22% 2% 12% 21% 23%
58 89% 97% 22% 71% 59% 68%
Idaho Power Company
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 13
59 72% 111% 167% 107% 140% 119%
60 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
Broken out across four size segments, the sites with the smallest nominated load
reduction, 0–50 kW, achieved a realization rate across the five events at 104%. The 0-
50 kW tied the 21-200 kW group for the largest portion of sites enrolled in the Program, at 52 sites each which accounted for 75% of total enrolled sites combined. The 51–200 kW achieved the lowest average realization rate of all groups at 45%. The 201-500 kW group had 26 sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 72%. The largest size
class, 501+ kW, had nine sites enrolled and achieved the highest average realization
rate across the three events at 101%. 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. This trend with the smallest group and largest group performing above the middle segments has been
apparent for several seasons now.
Figure 6 below represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all five events. To calculate the results, each site’s average load reduction (across five events) was divided by its average nomination across the five events and then grouped by size.
Figure 6.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)
Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination
Size Class
104%
45%
72%
101%
Idaho Power Company
Page 14 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
Program Costs
Program costs for 2021 totaled $501,973. Incentive payments were the largest expenditure comprising approximately 78% of total costs.
The incentive payments from the five events called during the 2021 Program season were broken down as follows: the fixed capacity payments total was $370,864 and the variable energy payment total was $24,509. Variable energy payments were made
during the season based off the fourth and fifth events kilowatt hour reductions.
The total Program costs for 2021 are estimated to be $16.40 per kW based on the maximum demand reduction of 30.6 MW, or $22.21 per kW, based on average load reduction for the season of 22.6MW.
Table 4 below displays the 2021 Program costs by expense category.

Table 4.
Expense Category 2021 Program Costs
Materials & Equipment $17,034
Marketing & Administration $89,566
Incentive payments $395,373
Total $501,973
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 2019
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 2019 IRP to be $19.6 million.
Idaho Power Company
2021 Flex Peak Program Report Page 15
In 2021, the cost of operating all three of Idaho Power’s DR programs was $8.27 million. It is estimated that if the three programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours, the total costs would have been approximately $11.44 million, which is below the total annual
costs agreed upon in the Settlement as revised in the 2019 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 called five load reduction events during the
2021 Program season which is the first time this has occurred since 2012. This past
season was extremely hot and dry across the West with capacity constraints across the Pacific Northwest which impacted the ability to important energy resulting in the program being utilized more. In all five events the Program provided a resource to assist Load Serving Operators balancing the forecast when it did not align with actual peak
load, as well as potentially avoid additional market purchases.
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 total variable incentives paid in 2021 for the 4th an 5th events were $24,509.
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 2021 Annual Report when all the data will be available.
Program Marketing
Though the terms of IPUC Order No. 32923 and OPUC Order No. 13-482 do not require program marketing, Idaho Power energy advisors regularly communicate with current
participants and encourage them to enroll new sites. The Flex Peak Program also
continued to be included in the C&I Energy Efficiency Program collateral. This past fall the Company filed with both the Idaho and Oregon Public Utilities Commissions to adjust parameters of the program based on the Integrated Resource Plan identifying a need for a change in the program resources. With this change, the prior settlement
agreement will no longer apply and Idaho Power plans to market the program as
needed in the future to increase program capacity.
Customer Satisfaction Results
Idaho Power did not conduct a post-season survey this year as one was conducted in 2019 and the program conducts surveys on a three-year cycle.
Idaho Power Company
Page 16 2021 Flex Peak Program Report
Program Activities for 2022
The primary improvement Idaho Power and the Program could benefit from is increased
capacity with more enrollment. The Company will continue to communicate the value
proposition and market the program to customers prior to the 2022 season. Recruitment efforts for the 2022 season will begin in the first quarter of 2022 to encourage participation. Idaho Power will engage with existing participants to discuss past performance and upcoming season details. The Program Specialist has already started
working with potential candidates for the 2022 season with an increased focus on
enrolling national chain stores and other targeted customers within our service area.
The Program will continue to be marketed as part of the C&I Energy Efficiency Program. 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, newsletters, My Account and radio advertising. There will also be an increased focused on recruitment using Idaho Power Energy Advisors targeting customers that are a good fit for the program and a
targeted email recruitment campaign. The Company will continue to target enrollment of
national chain customers within our service area.
For the upcoming season the company has proposed both operational and incentive changes to the program. The filling is currently at the Public Utility Commission waiting on a final decision. In preparation for program changes the company fielded a survey
about the possible changes to current participants as well as held a webinar to share
the proposals to get their feedback.
Conclusion
The Program currently contributes approximately 10% 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 $22.21 per kW based on average reduction (22.6 MW) for the season.

2021 Irrigation Peak
Rewards Program Report

January 2022
© 2022 Idaho Power
Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only 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
Interruption Options ............................................................................................................1
Parameters ...........................................................................................................................2
Incentives .............................................................................................................................2
Opt-Outs...............................................................................................................................3
Participation .....................................................................................................................................3
Operations........................................................................................................................................5
Equipment ..................................................................................................................................5
Monitoring .................................................................................................................................5
Data Gathering and Processing..................................................................................................6
Load Reduction Analysis ..................................................................................................................6
Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations ..........................................................7
Event Day Highlights ............................................................................................................8
June 18 .................................................................................................................................8
June 28 .................................................................................................................................8
July 12...................................................................................................................................8
July 16...................................................................................................................................8
July 26...................................................................................................................................8
July 29...................................................................................................................................9
July 30...................................................................................................................................9
August 12 .............................................................................................................................9
Results for each event day by category and percentage, percentage during each event
by reason........................................................................................................................................10
Potential Realization Rate Analysis ..........................................................................................10
Load Reduction Results—Total System Load Data ..................................................................11
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page ii Internal Use Only
Costs ...............................................................................................................................................12
Annual program costs by category ................................................................................................12
Customer Satisfaction ....................................................................................................................13
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................13

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 ......................4
Table 3. Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event and groups called,
including line losses .......................................................................................................7
Table 4. Need name .........................................................................................................................7
Table 5. Results for each event day by category and percentage, percentage during each
event by reason............................................................................................................10
Table 6. Annual program costs by category ..................................................................................12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. IPC service area .................................................................................................................4
Figure 2. 2021 dstribution of participants by service area ..............................................................4
Figure 3. 2021 potential realization rate .......................................................................................10

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
The demand reduction calculation method .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only 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 succe ss
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 can span a seven-hour
timeframe with four groups being dispatched and each group overlapping 1 hour. Each group is off for
four hours and a minimum of three four-hour events. If four or more events are dispatched during the
season, any pump participating in the additional events will receive additional variable payment of
$0.148 per kilowatt (kW) x 4 hours . Participants enrolled the 9 p.m. option are eligible for an extended
variable payment at $0.198 per kW billed x 4 hours . Participants were organized into four group
categories and labeled groups A, B, C, and D:
• Group A—Eastern region participants
• Group B—Southern region partcipants
• Group C—Western, Canyon and Capital regions, participants included C1 and C2 as subgroups of
group C. Subgroups C1 and C2 included a small subset of the manual dispatch option.
SubgroupC1 shut off expected two hours before Group C, and subgroup C2 shut off expected
one hour before Group C.
• Group D— participants enrolled in the 9 p.m. option and located throughout the service area
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 99 % 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 one percent of automatic dispatch
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. Late 2020 and spring 2021 contracted
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 2 Internal Use Only
electricians exchanged many of the cell devices to a DRU due to substation upgrades that added AMI
capabilitis through the 2020 year. The removed cell devices were retired.
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. 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 kW available and anticipated
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 bill for 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
Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 3
paid a higher variable credit. In 2021 group C experienced a total of four events and groups A, B and D
experienced five events which caused the variable payments to be initiated.
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 2021 are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Monthly incentive rates for manual and automatic options
Fixed Demand Credit
($/billing kW)
Fixed Energy Credit ($/billing
kWh)
Variable Energy Credit per
hour($/billing kW)
Extended Variable Energy per
hour Credit* ($/billing kW)
$5.00 $0.0076 $0.148 $0.198
* 5to 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 during the first three events (the opt out fee for events from 4 on is $1 per
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 before the end of the event (four hours) Interval metering data and the horsepower rating are
used to determine an inexplicit opt-out after the event data has been collected and analyzed.
PARTICIPATION
In February 2021, IPC mailed IPR enrollment packets to all customers with past participanting service
points. The packets included an enrollment worksheet included estimated credits for participation,
contact worksheets, and an IPR brochure.
In 2021, IPC did not have the opportunity to communicate program details at the four agricultural shows
due to safety precautions related to COVID-19. IPC continued to encourage past participants to enroll
through one-on-one conversations in person and on the phone.
Nominated billing demand was 402.83 megawatts (MW) with 2,235 pumps enrolled for the 2021
season. The annual participation has remained relatively steady over the past several 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.
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 4 Internal Use Only

Figure 1. IPC service area

Figure 2. 2021 dstribution of participants by service area
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 164 10 125 135 82.32% 35.72
Capital 379 30 309 339 89.45% 94.18
Eastern 1126 952 952 84.55% 135.44
Southern 980 5 720 725 73.98% 125.33
Western 62 36 36 58.06% 2.49
6.04%
15.17%
42.60%
32.44%
1.61%
2.15%
Canyon Capital Eastern Southern Western Oregon
Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 5
Oregon 63 3 45 48 76.19% 9.66
Totals 2,774 48 2,187 2,235 80.57% 402.82

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 a command through
the power line.
AMI technology allows IPC to analyze the interval metering data of participating pumps during load-
control events. Interval metering reports provide data to help determine which DRUs functioned
properly and which pumps turned off and stayed off during the event. During the 2021 season 2,527
DRUs were active and installed at 2,100 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 end
of 2020 and the spring of 2021 many of the cellular devices were exchanged for the DRU due to an AMI
substation expansion project. Only 20 pump locations remain with 20 cellular devices. The main reason
for the exchange is the interval metering data on more pump locations allowing for detailed analysis of
over 99% of the pumps enrolled.
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 information and assumptions made using the interval metering data and the
communication reports provided weekly, a work order may be created and 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.
Several issues with DRUs and cell devices have been identified, including:
• Inoperable
• Damaged
• Device missing a fuse
• DRU serial number or cell device IP address and/or SG number had been recorded inaccurately
and the system could not find the correct communication path
• New panel install at the pump site requiring a new device install on the new panel
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 6 Internal Use Only
• Water damage to the device
• Device—no longer at the pump location
Data Gathering and Processing
Troubleshooting, electrician work orders and load reducstion calculations are informed by the interval
metering data analysis. The first step of the data analysis is gathering the data. This includes AMI data,
cellular device data, MV-90 hourly data, and logged data from manually read meters. The data is then
separated into three data sets:
1. Pumps with AMI technology and interval metering 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 four primary
sources:
1. Program participant list
2. Interval metering data
3. Cellular device communication data from event days
4. Total system load data for event days and surrogate days
The IPR participant data for each event day includes the following:
• Pump number
• Device Location
• 2021 dispatch option
• 2021 dispatch group
• Nominated kW
• Cellular device or DRU serial number or identified as a 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 MW readings in five-minute increments on event days as well
as comparative nonevent days.
Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 7
Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations
Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage before 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. Table 3 displays the load
reduction results for each event day. The load reduction at generation level includes a 9.7 percent line
loss.
• Baseline hours are calculated using the average of the first four hours of the five hours before
the dispatch group start time.
• The event hour reduction is calculated using the average of the event time frame for each
dispatch group.
• Data with errors are removed from the data set and the group average is extrapolated and
applied to the error set.
• Load reduction for automaticdispatch option with interval metering data is calculated and then
extrapolated to represent all load including those with errors and without interval metering
data.
• Load reduction for the automatic cell dispatch option is calculated using the automatic dispatch
option percentage extrapolated to represent the load reduction of sites with cell devices.
• Load reduction for manual dispatch option is calculated using interval metering data from AMI,
MV-90 and manual data loggers without errors.
• 2215 pump locations have interval data, representing 99.1% of the total enrolled pump
locations.
Table 3. Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event and groups called, including line losses
Event Date Groups 2-3 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 7-8 p.m. 8-9 p.m.
6/18/2021 B, C 7.28 92.95 173.30 173.30 166.02 80.35
6/28/2021 A, C, D 8.83 22.01 203.03 255.52 246.69 233.51 52.49
7/12/2021 A, D 60.45 103.89 103.89 103.89 43.43
7/16/2021 B, C 8.08 21.18 181.99 181.99 173.91 160.81
7/26/2021 A, B, D 37.84 90.82 121.13 121.13 83.28 30.31
7/29/2021 B, C 3.78 16.98 131.49 131.49 127.71 114.50
7/30/2021 A, D 69.32 69.32 69.32 69.32
8/12/2021 A, B, D 86.16 117.32 117.32 117.32 31.16

Table 4. Oregon hourly demand reduction results (MW) on season peak reduction event day
Event Date Groups 2–3 p.m. 3–4 p.m. 4–5 p.m. 5–6 p.m. 6–7 p.m. 7–8 p.m. 8–9 p.m.
6/28/2021 C,D 0.00 0.00 8.08 8.38 8.38 8.39 .30

2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 8 Internal Use Only
Event Day Highlights
June 18
Idaho Power’s service area experienced a hot and dry spring and the irrigation load on IPC system was
over 800 MW on June 17. The first event, a Friday, was three days into the program season and the
anticipated load reduction was 150 MW with groups B and C being called for shut off. IPC received eight
explicit opt-outs. The Bruneau Bridge Substation (BUBG) had strained communication for approximately
one week overlapping the date of the event. BUBG did not have reliable communication during this
timeframe due to the remote nature and no Verizon cell service to the gear. They had technicicans
working on a solution. All event notifications fired perfectly and on time as expected.
June 28
The second event occurred on a Monday following an record high heat wave in the northwest including
heat cones over Seattle and Portland. The anticipated load reducation was 165 MW including groups A,
C and D. IPC called all three demand response programs on June 28 due to the forecasted peak load. The
event started at 4:00 p.m. and experienced 44 explicit opt-outs. All commands to the DRUs were
successful and all substations involved were communicating as expected. The scheduler called to
discuss canceling Group D but then moved forward as scheduled. Some participants were surprised by
the 4:00 p.m. shut off as they had gone earlier in previous years of enrollment.
July 12
The third event occurred on a Monday. The anticipated load reduction was 117 MW and groups A and D
were called. The event started at 4:00 p.m. and temperatures were 105° F in Boise. For this event,
there were 21 opt-outs and many of them were the same as the previous event. The opt-outs reasons
noted were “must have the water, too dry, can’t catch up, water just came back on and I cannot have it
go off again now”. Part of the reason to call an event on this day was due to system generation being
down for maintenance or down unexpectedly. The notifications to participants went out as designed
and the communication to the DRUs and cell devices occurred without delays.
July 16
The fourth event occurred on a Friday. IPC had called IPR on Monday of this same week however the
two opposite groups. No group ended up off twice in the same week. The anticipated load reduction
was 136 MW with groups B and C participating. The event started at 4:00 p.m. with 12 explicit opt-outs.
The notifications to participants went out as designed and the communication to the DRUs and cell
devices occurred without delays. Overall the event went smoothly with only a little feedback from the
participants.
July 26
The fifth event occurred on a Monday. The anticipated load reduction was 135 MW with groups A, B and
D participating. The event started at 3:00 p.m. and 19 pumps explicitly opted-out. It seems the stress for
irrigators has lessened due to later in the season, some crops are off entirely and others have a mature
Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 9
canopy and four hours of no water is less of an issue. A few of the opt-out calls indicated the
pump/water had been off in the past week and they were unable to participate due to just getting the
water back up. No calls received after the event timeframe indicating issues with getting the pumps
back on. The actual load was below the forecasted load all day on the system load curve.
July 29
The sixth event occurred on a Thursday and was the fourth event for groups B and C participants. The
event started at 4:00 p.m. with an anticipated load reduction of 130 MW. IPC called all three demand
response programs on this day. Ninety six pumps explicitly opted-out. Due to the high number of opt-
outs in Group C – approximately30 %, Group B was dispatched at 2:00 p.m. instead of the four-hour
notification timeframe. The notification system did not know how to handle the short notification
timeline and sent the shut off to groups A and D as well. This caused confusion with participants in
addition to many callers stating, “I thought we already had three events”. Participating pump locations
were eligible for a variable credit payment based on billed kW.
July 30
The seventh event occurred on a Friday and was the fourth event for groups A and D participants. The
event started at 4:00 p.m. with an anticipated load reduction of 70 MW. Ten pumps explicitly opted-out.
The notifications to participants went out as designed and the communication to the DRU’s and Cell
devices occurred without delays. The system load dropped all throughout the afternoon, likely due to
the overcast skies and slightly windy conditions. The temperatures also ended up being lower than
forecasted. Participating pump locations were eligible for a variable credit payment based on billed kW.
August 12
The eighth event occurred on a Thursday and was the fifth event for groups A, B and D. Participating
pump locations were eligible for another variable credit payment based on billed kW. The event started
at 4:00 p.m. Temperatures were over 100° F in Boise and Portland, Oregon was forecasted to hit 104° F.
All over the northwest the hot temperatures drove increased system load and strained the electrical
system. Twenty-two pumps explicitly opted-out. The notifications to participants went out as designed
and the communication to the DRUs and cell devices occurred without delays. Table 5 shows the
average by category for load left on at participating pumps.

2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 10 Internal Use Only

Table 5. Results for each event day by category and percentage, percentage during each event by reason
Event Date Device Failure Explicit Opt Out Inexplicit opt out Small Load
Average MW on
during an event
6/18/2021 15.49% 0.54% 0.15% 1.37% 17.55%
6/28/2021 7.26% 0.95% 2.66% 1.67% 12.55%
7/12/2021 9.62% 1.36% 2.24% 1.69% 14.92%
7/16/2021 4.40% 0.81% 1.62% 1.07% 7.89%
7/26/2021 7.23% 1.14% 2.61% 0.95% 11.92%
7/29/2021 5.24% 1.90% 7.38% 1.11% 15.62%
7/30/2021 9.91% 2.00% 1.41% 0.75% 14.07%
8/12/2021 7.37% 1.73% 2.85% 1.45% 13.40%

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 13.29% for the 2021 season. The average of 13.29% was weighted
by event day and group and applied to the highest irrigation load during the season, June 24, 2021. By removing
the average left on, IPC more accurately calculates the potential load reduction for any day during the season, had
a demand response event been called. 2021 IPR season potential realization rate per day (all days except for
Sundays and July 4)

Figure 3. 2021 potential realization rate
63
.
8
%
63
.
1
%
64
.
1
%
38
.
7
%
67
.
3
%
68
.
5
%
70
.
7
%
71
.
9
%
72
.
3
%
71
.
9
%
70
.
2
%
36
.
9
%
71
.
6
%
71
.
6
%
71
.
4
%
71
.
3
%
70
.
0
%
65
.
9
%
64
.
2
%
62
.
5
%
61
.
6
%
60
.
8
%
61
.
1
%
48
.
3
%
59
.
1
%
60
.
3
%
58
.
6
%
29
.
0
%
53
.
9
%
53
.
6
%
51
.
7
%
49
.
7
%
48
.
9
%
47
.
5
%
46
.
3
%
30
.
2
%
47
.
4
%
46
.
9
%
26
.
6
%
39
.
4
%
43
.
0
%
33
.
9
%
34
.
7
%
37
.
1
%
40
.
0
%
37
.
1
%
34
.
2
%
41
.
3
%
42
.
1
%
43
.
3
%
28
.
3
%
43
.
7
%
41
.
9
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 11
The 2021 maximum potential realization rate of 72.31% on June 24, results in a maximum potential load
reduction for IPR of 319.53 MW for the 2021 IPR season. The realization rate is typically the 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. Also note in
figure 3, that days when events where actually called show a low potential realization because
participants in the event are off due to the event.
Load Reduction Results—Total System Load Data
The graphs shown below by event date represent IPC system load in five-minute intervals and the Peak
Participant load reduction based on the total system load data and the interval metering data used to
calculate event performance. Figure 4 shows each load reduction event day in 2021 showing the system
load and participant load reduction.

2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 12 Internal Use Only

COSTS
IPR spent a total of $7,013,315 with incentives being the largest portion at 96.3% of total program costs.
Incentives paid for the 2021 season total $6,755,596, including variable incentives. The participants had
4 or 5 events each and were paid variable payments of a total of $332,803. The estimated maximum
cost of variable incentives of running the program at the full 60 hours for was an additional $2.67
million.
Table 6. Annual program costs by category
Expense Item 2021 Total Cost
Materials & Equipment $49,134
Purchased Service $89,267
Other Expense $35,301
Incentives $6,755,596
Labor/Administrative Expense $84,016
Total $7,013,315

Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 13
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
The general sentiment of IPR participants is positive with most folks asking for more notice of an event
and to enroll more pumps into the program. For an additional touch point with our IPR participants, IPC
mailed a letter to each participant with a summary of the fixed and variable peak credit totals for the
2021 season.
CONCLUSIONS
Highlights from the 2021 season include the following:
• 2,235 service points enrolled
• 402.83 MW of enrolled billing demand
• Maximum potential realization rate of 319.53 MW including line losses
• Event 1: June 18 – actual reduction 173.3 MW including line losses
• Event 2: June 28 – actual reduction 255.52 MW including line losses
• Event 3: July 12 – actual reduction 103.89 MW including line losses
• Event 4: July 16 – actual reduction 181.2 MW including line losses
• Event 5: July 26 – actual reduction 121.13 MW including line losses
• Event 6: July 29 – actual reduction 131.49 MW including line losses
• Event 7: July 30 – actual reduction 69.32 MW including line losses
• Event 8: August 12 – actual load reduction 117.32 MW including line losses
• 2,527 active AMI DRUs
• 20 active IPC cellular devices
• 80.57 percent of eligible pump locations signed up to participate in 2021
• Peak Season Summary letter mailed to all participants showing the opt outs if applicable and
fixed and variable credits for 2021.
• Variable Credits for the fourth and fifth events totalled $332,803
• The cost of running the program for eight events this season was $7.01 million
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 14 Internal Use Only
• The cost of having this resource available was $21.94 per kW, based upon the maximum
potential kW reduction in 2021.
• The estimated cost of running the program for the maximum of 60 hours in 2021 is an
additional $2.67 million

Idaho Power 2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Internal Use Only Page 15

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 four 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

Manual Dispatch Option
Data utilized for manual dispatch option participants is AMI hourly usage, MV-90 interval data or data
logger interval metering data.
2021 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 16 Internal Use Only
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
Historical DSM Expense
and Performance
2002–2021
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 1
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
2020 ����������������������22,536 765,020 765,020 19
2021 ����������������������20,846 751,989 751,989 27
Total���������������������������$30,584,085 $30,584,086
Flex Peak Program
2009 ����������������������33 528,681 528,681 19
2010 ����������������������60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48
2011 ����������������������111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59
2012 ����������������������102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53
2013 ����������������������100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48
2014 ����������������������93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40
2015 ����������������������72 592,872 592,872 26
2016 ����������������������137 767,997 767,997 42
2017 ����������������������141 658,156 658,156 36
2018 ����������������������140 433,313 433,313 33
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2019 ����������������������145 626,823 626,823 31
2020 ����������������������141 542,480 542,480 24
2021 ����������������������139 501,973 501,973 31
Total���������������������������$15,929,351 $15,929,351
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
2020 ����������������������2,292 6,407,412 6,407,412 292
2021 ����������������������2,235 7,013,315 7,013,315 255
Total���������������������������$112,516,330 $112,516,330
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 $0.138
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 3
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Easy Savings : Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
2015 ����������������������2,068 127,477 127,477 624,536 10 0�021 0�021
2016 ����������������������2,001 127,587 127,587 402,961 9 0�035 0�035
2017 ����������������������2,470 149,813 149,813 280,049 8 0�064 0�064
2018 ����������������������282 147,936 147,936 29,610 3 1�370 1�370
2019 ����������������������430 145,494 145,494 45,150 3 0�885 0�885
2020 ����������������������155 9,503 9,503 10,628 3 0�299 0�299
2021 ����������������������0 145,827 145,827 0 3 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������7,406 $853,636 $853,636 1,392,934 9 $0.082 $0.082
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
2020 ����������������������97,228 3,106,820 3,106,820 9,481,801 11 0�038 0�038
2021 ����������������������47,027 449,790 449,790 2,931,280 10 0�019 0�019
Total���������������������������514,161 $15,908,553 $15,908,553 77,276,804 11 $0.024 $0.024
Energy Efficiency Packets
2002 ����������������������2,925 755 755 155,757 7 0�001 0�001
Total���������������������������2,925 $755 $755 155,757 7 $0.001 $0.001
Energy Efficient Lighting
2002 ����������������������11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0�012 0�015
2003 ����������������������12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0�014 0�021
2004 ����������������������n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2005 ����������������������43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0�007 0�010
2006 ����������������������178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0�008 0�014
2007 ����������������������219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0�012 0�017
2008 ����������������������436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0�011 0�013
2009 ����������������������549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0�020 0�024
2010 ����������������������1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0�020 0�031
2011 ����������������������1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0�015 0�024
2012 ����������������������925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0�012 0�025
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2013 ����������������������1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0�016 0�058
2014 ����������������������1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0�018 0�066
2015 ����������������������1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0�013 0�028
2016 ����������������������1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0�014 0�049
2017 ����������������������1,766,758 4,872,888 11,078,990 37,765,190 12 0�012 0�026
2018 ����������������������1,340,842 2,435,130 3,277,039 18,856,933 14 0�011 0�014
2019 ����������������������1,336,440 2,126,262 2,782,039 16,245,551 14 0�011 0�014
2020 ����������������������1,148,061 1,667,159 3,065,781 13,942,202 14 0�012 0�022
2021 ����������������������0 43,631 43,631 0 14 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������15,232,422 $28,616,040 $60,739,317 261,004,362 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
2020 ����������������������51 46,352 46,352 56,944 16 0�075 0�075
2021 ����������������������11 18,257 18,257 14,985 18 0�105 0�105
Total���������������������������12,441 $5,932,191 $5,932,191 15,513,297 19 $0.032 $0.032
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 5
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
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 $0.062
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
2006 ����������������������17,444 17,444
2007 ���������������������� 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27�344 27�710
2008 ���������������������� 359 473,551 599,771 561,440 18 0�073 0�092
2009 ���������������������� 349 478,373 764,671 1,274,829 18 0�034 0�054
2010 ���������������������� 217 327,669 1,073,604 1,104,497 20 0�025 0�083
2011 ����������������������130 195,770 614,523 733,405 20 0�018 0�056
2012 ����������������������141 182,281 676,530 688,855 20 0�018 0�066
2013 ����������������������210 329,674 741,586 1,003,730 20 0�022 0�050
2014 ����������������������230 362,014 1,247,560 1,099,464 20 0�022 0�075
2015 ����������������������427 626,369 2,064,055 1,502,172 20 0�028 0�092
2016 ����������������������483 594,913 1,404,625 1,113,574 20 0�040 0�040
2017 ����������������������654 597,198 1,433,357 1,138,744 15 0�041 0�099
2018 ����������������������712 585,211 1,686,618 1,556,065 15 0�029 0�085
2019 ����������������������681 499,179 1,512,183 1,412,183 15 0�028 0�084
2020 ����������������������1,019 606,559 1,911,792 1,839,068 14 0�033 0�103
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2021 ����������������������1,048 635,182 2,246,011 1,365,825 15 0�044 0�157
Total���������������������������6,664 $6,999,599 $18,489,318 16,395,607 17 $0.038 $0.100
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
2020 ����������������������97 130,546 142,649 31,938 12 0�448 0�490
2021 ����������������������37 70,448 75,461 3,768 11 2�173 2�328
Total���������������������������2,689 $1,730,140 $1,951,694 1,085,801 11 $0.185 $0.209
Home Energy Reports 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
2020 ����������������������127,138 899,203 899,203 10,427,940 1 0�081 0�081
2021 ����������������������115,153 970,197 970,197 15,929,074 1 0�057 0�057
Total���������������������������291,181 $2,264,618 $2,264,618 38,083,540 1 $0.056 $0.056
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 $0.080
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 7
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2020 ����������������������33 89,829 89,829 28,041 11 0�372 0�372
2021 ����������������������0 68,973 68,973 0 11 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������2,133 $722,502 $722,502 1,797,404 11 $0.047 $0.047
Oregon Residential Weatherization
2002 ����������������������24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0�010 0�389
2003 ����������������������-943
2004 ����������������������4 1,057 1,057
2005 ����������������������4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0�006 0�034
2006 ����������������������4,126 4,126
2007 ����������������������1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0�028 0�042
2008 ����������������������3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0�025 0�096
2009 ����������������������1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0�203 0�223
2010 ����������������������1 6,050 6,275 320 30 0�011 0�062
2011 ����������������������8 7,926 10,208 21,908 30 0�021 0�027
2012 ����������������������5 4,516 11,657 11,985 30 0�022 0�056
2013 ����������������������14 9,017 14,369 14,907 30 0�035 0�055
2014 ����������������������13 5,462 9,723 11,032 30 0�028 0�050
2015 ����������������������4 5,808 10,388 11,910 30 0�028 0�050
2016 ����������������������7 3,930 5,900 2,847 30 0�079 0�118
2017 ����������������������7 2,384 3,755 2,154 30 0�063 0�099
2018 ����������������������5 5,507 5,507
2019 ����������������������8 5,982 14,432 2,069 45 0�149 0�360
2020 ����������������������0 5,313 5,313 0 45 n/a n/a
2021 ����������������������0 4,595 4,595 0 45 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������109 $89,523 $177,635 126,713 28 $0.050 $0.099
Rebate Advantage
2003 ����������������������73 27,372 79,399 227,434 45 0�008 0�022
2004 ����������������������105 52,187 178,712 332,587 45 0�010 0�034
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)Peak Demand f
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
2005 ����������������������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
2020 ����������������������116 180,422 437,263 366,678 44 0�031 0�075
2021 ����������������������88 173,193 309,790 235,004 45 0�046 0�083
Total���������������������������1,456 $1,631,532 $3,370,074 5,745,743 38 $0.018 $0.038
Residential New Construction Program (ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest)
2003 ����������������������13,597 13,597 0
2004 ����������������������44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0�103 0�246
2005 ����������������������200 253,105 315,311 415,600 25 0�045 0�056
2006 ����������������������439 469,609 602,651 912,242 25 0�038 0�049
2007 ����������������������303 475,044 400,637 629,634 25 0�056 0�047
2008 ����������������������254 302,061 375,007 468,958 25 0�048 0�059
2009 ����������������������474 355,623 498,622 705,784 25 0�039 0�055
2010 ����������������������630 375,605 579,495 883,260 25 0�033 0�051
2011 ����������������������308 259,762 651,249 728,030 32 0�020 0�051
2012 ����������������������410 453,186 871,310 537,447 35 0�046 0�089
2013 ����������������������267 352,882 697,682 365,370 36 0�053 0�104
2014 ����������������������243 343,277 689,021 332,682 36 0�057 0�114
2015 ����������������������598 653,674 1,412,126 773,812 36 0�046 0�099
2016 ����������������������110 142,158 297,518 150,282 36 0�051 0�107
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 9
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2020 ����������������������248 473,504 865,989 649,522 58 0�044 0�081
2021 ����������������������90 247,600 524,876 389,748 61 0�039 0�082
Total���������������������������5,524 $6,569,401 $12,072,298 10,203,828 35 $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
2020 ����������������������0 28,490 28,490 52,662 30 0�038 0�038
2021 ����������������������2,970 184,680 184,680 44,173 40 0�269 0�269
Total���������������������������15,873 $1,049,056 $1,049,056 168,133 31 $0.428 $0.428
Simple Steps, Smart Savings
2007 ����������������������9,275 9,275 0
2008 ����������������������3,034 250,860 468,056 541,615 15 0�044 0�082
2009 ����������������������9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0�031 0�051
2010 ����������������������16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0�057 0�070
2011 ����������������������15,896 638,323 1,520,977 1,485,326 15 0�034 0�080
2012 ����������������������16,675 659,032 817,924 887,222 14 0�061 0�075
2013 ����������������������13,792 405,515 702,536 885,980 12 0�041 0�071
2014 ����������������������10,061 227,176 302,289 652,129 12 0�031 0�041
2015 ����������������������9,343 139,096 397,898 770,822 10 0�018 0�053
2016 ����������������������7,880 153,784 379,752 577,320 11 0�025 0�063
2017 ����������������������12,556 191,621 484,380 900,171 11 0�020 0�051
2018 ����������������������7,377 90,484 133,101 241,215 12 0�034 0�050
2019 ����������������������5,729 90,499 123,541 271,452 11 0�032 0�043
2020 ����������������������6,894 99,141 98,629 148,404 12 0�073 0�073
Total���������������������������135,058 $4,298,280 $7,308,320 10,443,274 13 $0.043 $0.073
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2020 ����������������������27 208,715 208,715 47,360 23 0�338 0�338
2021 ����������������������7 57,656 57,656 12,591 30 0�317 0�317
Total���������������������������1,432 $10,284,457 $10,296,666 5,385,434 24 $0.144 $0.144
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 $0.079
Residential—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC)
WAQC—Idaho
2002 ����������������������197 235,048 492,139
2003 ����������������������208 228,134 483,369
2004 ����������������������269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0�029 0�050
2005 ����������������������570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0�033 0�045
2006 ����������������������540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0�037 0�056
2007 ����������������������397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0�029 0�040
2008 ����������������������439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0�025 0�032
2009 ����������������������427 1,260,922 1,937,578 4,563,832 25 0�021 0�033
2010 ����������������������373 1,205,446 2,782,597 3,452,025 25 0�026 0�060
2011 ����������������������273 1,278,112 1,861,836 2,648,676 25 0�036 0�052
2012 ����������������������228 1,321,927 1,743,863 621,464 25 0�157 0�208
2013 ����������������������245 1,336,742 1,984,173 657,580 25 0�150 0�223
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 11
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2020 ����������������������115 1,361,163 1,703,879 218,611 30 0�432 0�540
2021 ����������������������161 1,177,366 1,668,566 289,353 30 0�253 0�371
Total���������������������������5,732 $23,018,369 $34,442,360 30,918,313 25 $0.055 $0.082
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
2020 ����������������������0 24,414 24,414 0 30
2021 ����������������������1 9,473 21,586 1,752 30 0�375 0�854
Total���������������������������248 $732,871 $1,091,809 1,102,845 25 $0.049 $0.073
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 ���������������6,152 $23,926,511 $35,864,361 32,682,015 25 $0.054 $0.081
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
2020 ����������������������1,379 103,678 103,678 258,368 11 0�047 0�047
2021 ����������������������906 74,617 74,617 296,751 11 0�029 0�029
Total���������������������������6,566 $1,155,774 $1,155,774 1,566,883 10 $0.092 $0.092
New Construction
2004 ����������������������28,821 28,821
2005 ����������������������12 194,066 233,149 494,239 12 0�043 0�052
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 13
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2006 ����������������������40 374,008 463,770 704,541 12 0�058 0�072
2007 ����������������������22 669,032 802,839 2,817,248 12 0�015 0�040
2008 ����������������������60 1,055,009 1,671,375 6,598,123 12 0�017 0�028
2009 ����������������������72 1,327,127 2,356,434 6,146,139 12 0�024 0�043
2010 ����������������������70 1,509,682 3,312,963 10,819,598 12 0�016 0�035
2011 ����������������������63 1,291,425 3,320,015 11,514,641 12 0�010 0�026
2012 ����������������������84 1,592,572 8,204,883 20,450,037 12 0�007 0�036
2013 ����������������������59 1,507,035 3,942,880 10,988,934 12 0�012 0�032
2014 ����������������������69 1,258,273 3,972,822 9,458,059 12 0�012 0�037
2015 ����������������������81 2,162,001 6,293,071 23,232,017 12 0�008 0�024
2016 ����������������������116 1,931,222 4,560,826 12,393,249 12 0�014 0�033
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
2020 ����������������������119 2,383,983 4,175,611 14,565,936 12 0�018 0�031
2021 ����������������������95 2,691,171 4,160,999 17,536,004 12 0�017 0�026
Total���������������������������1,355 $28,027,144 $62,112,565 199,091,234 12 $0.015 $0.034
Retrofits
2006 ����������������������31,819 31,819
2007 ����������������������104 711,494 1,882,035 5,183,640 0�8 12 0�015 0�040
2008 ����������������������666 2,992,261 10,096,627 25,928,391 4�5 12 0�013 0�043
2009 ����������������������1,224 3,325,505 10,076,237 35,171,627 6�1 12 0�011 0�032
2010 ����������������������1,535 3,974,410 7,655,397 35,824,463 7�8 12 0�013 0�024
2011 ����������������������1,732 4,719,466 9,519,364 38,723,073 12 0�011 0�022
2012 ����������������������1,838 5,349,753 9,245,297 41,568,672 12 0�012 0�020
2013 ����������������������1,392 3,359,790 6,738,645 21,061,946 12 0�014 0�029
2014 ����������������������1,095 3,150,942 5,453,380 19,118,494 12 0�015 0�025
2015 ����������������������1,222 4,350,865 7,604,200 23,594,701 12 0�017 0�029
2016 ����������������������1,577 5,040,190 8,038,791 28,124,779 12 0�016 0�026
2017 ����������������������1,137 4,343,835 12,500,303 23,161,877 12 0�017 0�049
2018 ����������������������1,358 5,990,179 16,253,716 34,910,707 12 0�015 0�042
2019 ����������������������1,033 6,281,056 17,700,769 42,674,418 12 0�013 0�037
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2020 ����������������������630 3,587,277 11,964,431 20,965,215 12 0�019 0�063
2021 ����������������������787 3,826,750 11,486,766 21,181,022 12 0�020 0�059
Total���������������������������17,330 $61,035,591 $146,247,776 417,193,025 12 $0.016 $0.038
Holiday Lighting
2008 ����������������������14 28,782 73,108 259,092 10 0�014 0�035
2009 ����������������������32 33,930 72,874 142,109 10 0�031 0�066
2010 ����������������������25 46,132 65,308 248,865 10 0�024 0�034
2011 ����������������������6 2,568 2,990 66,189 10 0�004 0�005
Total���������������������������77 $111,412 $214,280 716,255 10 $0.019 $0.037
Oregon Commercial Audit
2002 ����������������������24 5,200 5,200
2003 ����������������������21 4,000 4,000
2004 ����������������������7 0 0
2005 ����������������������7 5,450 5,450
2006 ����������������������6
2007 ����������������������1,981 1,981
2008 ����������������������58 58
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
2020 ����������������������2 1,374 1,374
2021 ����������������������3 4,401 4,401
Total���������������������������241 $117,671 $117,671
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 15
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Oregon School Efficiency
2005 ����������������������86 86
2006 ����������������������6 24,379 89,771 223,368 12 0�012 0�044
Total���������������������������6 $24,465 $89,857 223,368 12 $0.012 $0.044
Small Business Direct Install
2020 ����������������������139 339,830 339,830 780,260 9 0�058 0�058
2021 ����������������������452 1,032,056 1,032,056 2,421,842 11 0�062 0�062
Total���������������������������591 $1,371,886 $1,371,886 3,202,102 11 $0.050 $0.050
Industrial
Custom Projects
2003 ����������������������1,303 1,303
2004 ����������������������1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0�058 0�069
2005 ����������������������24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0�010 0�033
2006 ����������������������40 1,625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0�009 0�024
2007 ����������������������49 3,161,866 7,012,686 29,789,304 3�6 12 0�012 0�026
2008 ����������������������101 4,045,671 16,312,379 41,058,639 4�8 12 0�011 0�044
2009 ����������������������132 6,061,467 10,848,123 51,835,612 6�7 12 0�013 0�024
2010 ����������������������223 8,778,125 17,172,176 71,580,075 9�5 12 0�014 0�027
2011 ����������������������166 8,783,811 19,830,834 67,979,157 7�8 12 0�012 0�026
2012 ����������������������126 7,092,581 12,975,629 54,253,106 7�6 12 0�012 0�021
2013 ����������������������73 2,466,225 5,771,640 21,370,350 2�4 12 0�010 0�024
2014 ����������������������131 7,173,054 13,409,922 50,363,052 5�6 12 0�013 0�024
2015 ����������������������160 9,012,628 20,533,742 55,247,192 6�3 11 0�016 0�035
2016 ����������������������196 7,982,624 16,123,619 47,518,871 16 0�013 0�026
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
2020 ����������������������169 18,059,396 41,604,451 94,006,717 15 0�018 0�042
2021 ����������������������135 8,608,903 22,552,383 53,728,267 13 0�017 0�044
Total���������������������������2,401 $123,461,560 $270,191,198 832,332,884 13 $0.015 $0.034
Green Motors Rewind—Industrial
2016 ����������������������14 123,700 7
2017 ����������������������13 143,976 7
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2018 ����������������������25 64,167 7
2019 ����������������������12 117,223 8
2020 ����������������������10 56,012 8
2021 ����������������������4 20,430 8
Total���������������������������78 $0 $0 525,508 7
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
2003 ����������������������2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0�0 15 0�106 0�141
2004 ����������������������33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0�4 15 0�014 0�048
2005 ����������������������38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0�4 15 0�014 0�062
2006 ����������������������559 2,779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5�1 8 0�024 0�073
2007 ����������������������816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3�4 8 0�024 0�103
2008 ����������������������961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3�5 8 0�026 0�073
2009 ����������������������887 2,293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3�4 8 0�026 0�077
2010 ����������������������753 2,200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3�3 8 0�030 0�096
2011 ����������������������880 2,360,304 13,281,492 13,979,833 3�8 8 0�020 0�113
2012 ����������������������908 2,373,201 11,598,185 12,617,164 3�1 8 0�022 0�110
2013 ����������������������995 2,441,386 15,223,928 18,511,221 3�0 8 0�016 0�098
2014 ����������������������1,128 2,446,507 18,459,781 18,463,611 4�6 8 0�016 0�119
2015 ����������������������902 1,835,711 9,939,842 14,027,411 1�6 8 0�016 0�085
2016 ����������������������851 2,372,352 8,162,206 15,673,513 8 0�018 0�063
2017 ����������������������801 2,475,677 8,382,962 16,824,266 8 0�018 0�060
2018 ����������������������1,022 2,953,706 11,948,469 18,933,831 8 0�019 0�076
2019 ����������������������1,080 2,661,263 10,042,514 10,073,455 8 0�032 0�120
2020 ����������������������1,018 3,401,673 16,857,055 12,847,823 15 0�025 0�125
2021 ����������������������1,019 2,607,200 19,138,043 9,680,497 19 0�023 0�166
Total���������������������������14,653 $39,621,447 $180,910,170 228,647,637 9 $0.023 $0.106
Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation
2016 ����������������������23 73,617 19
2017 ����������������������27 63,783 19
2018 ����������������������26 67,676 19
2019 ����������������������34 44,705 20
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 17
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2020 ����������������������23 36,147 20
2021 ����������������������12 19,352 21
Total���������������������������145 $0 $0 305,280 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
Distribution Efficiency Initiative
2005 ����������������������21,552 43,969
2006 ����������������������24,306 24,306
2007 ����������������������8,987 8,987
2008 ����������������������-1,913 -1,913
Total���������������������������$52,932 $75,349
DSM Direct Program Overhead
2007 ����������������������56,909 56,909
2008 ����������������������169,911 169,911
2009 ����������������������164,957 164,957
2010 ����������������������117,874 117,874
2011 ����������������������210,477 210,477
2012 ����������������������285,951 285,951
2013 ����������������������380,957 380,957
2014 ����������������������478,658 478,658
2015 ����������������������272,858 272,858
2016 ����������������������293,039 293,039
2017 ����������������������1,759,352 1,759,352
2018 ����������������������1,801,955 1,801,955
2019 ����������������������2,119,820 2,119,820
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2020 ����������������������1,811,869 1,811,869
2021 ����������������������2,226,910 2,226,910
Total���������������������������$12,151,498 $12,151,498
Local Energy Efficiency Fund
2003 ����������������������56 5,100 5,100
2004 ����������������������23,449 23,449
2005 ����������������������2 14,896 26,756 78,000 10 0�024 0�042
2006 ����������������������480 3,459 3,459 19,027 7 0�009 0�009
2007 ����������������������1 7,520 7,520 9,000 7 0�135 0�135
2008 ����������������������2 22,714 60,100 115,931 0�0 15 0�019 0�049
2009 ����������������������1 5,870 4,274 10,340 0�0 12 0�064 0�047
2010 ����������������������1 251 251 0�0
2011 ����������������������1 1,026 2,052 2,028 30 0�035 0�070
2012 ����������������������
2013 ����������������������
2014 ����������������������1 9,100 9,100 95,834 18
Total���������������������������545 $93,385 $142,061 330,160 14 $0.028 $0.043
Other C&RD and CRC BPA
2002 ����������������������55,722 55,722
2003 ����������������������67,012 67,012
2004 ����������������������108,191 108,191
2005 ����������������������101,177 101,177
2006 ����������������������124,956 124,956
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 $270,105
Residential Education Initiative
2005 ����������������������7,498 7,498
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 19
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2006 ����������������������56,727 56,727
2007 ����������������������
2008 ����������������������150,917 150,917
2009 ����������������������193,653 193,653
2010 ����������������������222,092 222,092
2011 ����������������������159,645 159,645
2012 ����������������������174,738 174,738
2013 ����������������������416,166 416,166
2014 ����������������������6,312 423,091 423,091 1,491,225 11
2015 ����������������������149,903 149,903
2016 ����������������������290,179 290,179
2017 ����������������������223,880 223,880
2018 ����������������������172,215 172,215
2019 ����������������������160,851 160,851
2020 ����������������������223,731 223,731
2021 ����������������������483,067 483,067
Total���������������������������$3,508,353 $3,508,353 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 $160,762
NEEA
2002 ����������������������1,286,632 1,286,632 12,925,450
2003 ����������������������1,292,748 1,292,748 11,991,580
2004 ����������������������1,256,611 1,256,611 13,329,071
2005 ����������������������476,891 476,891 16,422,224
2006 ����������������������930,455 930,455 18,597,955
2007 ����������������������893,340 893,340 28,601,410
2008 ����������������������942,014 942,014 21,024,279
2009 ����������������������968,263 968,263 10,702,998
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)Peak Demand f
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
2010 ����������������������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 18,368,135
2020 ����������������������2,789,210 2,789,210 17,614,323
2021 ����������������������2,977,678 2,977,678 17,869,518
Total���������������������������$42,491,479 $42,491,479 393,349,387
Annual Totals
2002 ����������������������1,932,520 2,366,591 16,791,100 0�0
2003 ����������������������2,566,228 3,125,572 18,654,343 0�0
2004 ����������������������3,827,213 4,860,912 19,202,780 6�5
2005 ����������������������6,523,348 10,383,577 37,978,035 43�9
2006 ����������������������11,174,181 20,950,110 67,026,303 43�6
2007 ����������������������14,896,816 27,123,018 91,145,357 57�9
2008 ����������������������20,213,216 44,775,829 128,508,579 74�3
2009 ����������������������33,821,062 53,090,852 143,146,365 235�5
2010 ����������������������44,643,541 68,981,324 193,592,637 357�7
2011 ����������������������44,877,117 79,436,532 183,476,312 415�2
2012 ����������������������47,991,350 77,336,341 172,054,327 448�8
2013 ����������������������26,100,091 54,803,353 109,505,690 54�5
2014 ����������������������35,648,260 71,372,414 145,475,713 389�7
2015 ����������������������37,149,893 70,467,082 162,533,155 374�5
2016 ����������������������40,499,570 70,984,604 170,792,152 379�0
2017 ����������������������44,828,089 78,799,054 191,471,395 383�0
2018 ����������������������42,926,872 75,797,483 184,078,634 358�7
2019 ����������������������47,390,056 83,661,890 203,301,810 332�5
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report Page 21
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)Peak Demand f
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
2020 ����������������������49,354,064 100,230,772 198,432,599
2021 ����������������������37,056,897 79,194,093 143,971,237
Total Direct Program ������������������������������$593,424,386 $1,078,213,083 2,582,802,923
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
2020 ����������������������1,202,238
2021 ����������������������1,296,605
Total���������������������������$21,322,022
Total Expenses
2002 ����������������������2,061,375
2003 ����������������������2,528,685
2004 ����������������������3,969,550
2005 ����������������������6,700,972
2006 ����������������������11,484,013
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2021
Page 22 Demand-Side Management 2020 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2007 ����������������������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
2020 ����������������������50,556,303
2021 ����������������������38,353,503
Total 2002–2021 ��������$614,746,408
a Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from Idaho Power’s 2017 Integrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings.
b Program life benefit/cost ratios are provided for active programs only.
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 May 2021.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 1 of 39
Utility Consumer
Analytics, Inc
Adaptive Consumer Engagement
Idaho Power Corporation
Home Energy Report 2021
Final Program Summary
Version 1.3
Updated: 3/2/2022

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 2 of 39

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5
1. Home Energy Report Programs: How Savings are Derived 5
2. Project Overview 5
3. Results and Findings 6
1. Program Overview 8
1.1 Team Structure 8
1.2 Objectives 8
1.2.1 2021 Objectives 8
1.2.2 Additional Objectives 8
1.3 Treatment Groups Defined 9
1.3.1 Defining Program Terminology 9
1.3.2 2020 Program Groups 9
1.3.3 Eligibility Screening 10
1.4 Customer Data Acquisition/Integration 12
1.5 Additional Benchmarking Flags (AC and ESH)13
1.6 Aligning Tip Selection with Season 15
1.7 COVID-19 Adjustments 15
2. 2021 Program Results 16
2.1 Objectives: Findings 16
2.1.1 Energy Savings 16
2.1.2 Monthly Savings by Treatment Group 17
2.1.3 Evaluation, Measurement & Verification Process 17
2.1.4 Combined Savings for New Customers (T6) Vs. Existing Customers (T1234) 20
2.2 Email Reports 20
2.2.1 Enrollment 20
2.2.2 Delivery, Open, and Bounce Rates 21
2.3 Customer Feedback 21
2.3.1 Customer Service Line Calls and Opt-Out Rates 21
2.4 Additional Metrics 24
2.4.1 Microsite Engagement 24
2.4.2 My Account Web Activity 24
2.4.3 Attrition Rates 25
3. Process Improvements, Lessons Learned, and Future Considerations 27
3.1 Process Improvements 27
3.2 Lessons Learned 28
3.3 Future Considerations 29
4. Appendices 31
3.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports 31

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 3 of 39

3.2 Appendix B: Quarterly Program Monitoring Reports 39

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 4 of 39

Revision History

Date
Version Description Author/Editor
2-15-2022 1.0 Initial Draft Thea Winch
2-27-2022 1.1 Additional edits/comments Thea Winch
3-1-2022 1.2 Final Version Thea Winch
3-2-2022 1.3 Additional edits/comments Thea Winch
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 three Final Program Summary, version 1.3
approved by:
Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature
Date:

Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature:
Date:

Utility
Consumer
Analytics, Inc.
Name, Title
Signature:
Date:

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 5 of 39

Executive Summary
1. HOME ENERGY REPORT PROGRAMS: HOW SAVINGS ARE DERIVED
Energy savings due to behavioral changes in the home have traditionally been difficult to measure.
Home Energy Report (HER) programs rely on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) structure to
calculate energy savings and ensure program results are both unbiased and precise. The RCT
approach is the most commonly used approach for implementing HER programs in North America.
With this approach, we identify an eligible pool of customers based on the desired program
outcome, and then randomly allocate a subset of customers into the treatment group who will
receive the behavioral intervention (Home Energy Reports), and the remainder into the control
group who will not receive the intervention.
We estimate average customer-level savings from the behavioral program by measuring the
difference in the average energy usage among the treatment group relative to the control group.
Program energy savings are the average customer-level savings multiplied by the number of active
treatment group participants
Program Group refers to customers that are in the treatment group and are actively being treated
with reports. These customers by default are also part of the evaluation group.
Evaluation Group refers to customers that are in the treatment or control group and are factored
into the savings evaluations. Treatment customers in this group may or may not be actively
receiving reports.
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW
In July 2017, Idaho Power contracted with Aclara and its subcontractor, Uplight1 to create a Home
Energy Report pilot progra
use while meeting cost-effectiveness guidelines. The program was initially to span one year, with the
possibility of renewal.
The pilot program was renewed for a second year in August 2018, with the addition of a second
winter heating group and the optimization of existing treatment customers from year one. Prior to
the start of pilot year 2, customers with factors correlated with low savings were removed from the
program and evaluation group. The sixty percent of households with the lowest energy use in T5,
and about 15 percent of households from across T3, T4, and T5 who were saving less energy than
the rest of the group, were removed. The same factors were applied to their respective control
groups.
groups. Year two of the pilot program was extended from August 2019 through February 2020 to
ensure continuity of treatment, in preparation for an expansion of the program in year three.
In February of 2020 the program was expanded and extended through December 31, 2023,
contingent on continued cost-effectiveness. After applying a number of screening filters, 108,424
additional residential customers were identified as eligible to be added to the program as treatment

1 Uplight in this case is formerly known as Ecotagious. Ecotagious was acquired by Uplight in August 2019.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 6 of 39

participants and 18,492 treatment customers from the pilot program remained eligible after
optimizing the existing population.
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
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
3. RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Main takeaways from 2021 are as follows.
Collectively, all treatment groups saved .98%
In 2021, total savings calculated are 16,666,871 kWh. Collectively, the savings for all waves combined
are statistically significant. Although T-5 did not receive reports after February of 2020, when
compared with their control group, they showed persistent savings. Including the savings from T5,
the overall annual savings from this program are 16,767,446 kWh.
Using a weighted average calculation, the treatment group saved 1% or 151.50 kWh per customer
without T5 residual savings factored into the evaluation group. With residual savings from T5
included, the weighted average savings for all treatment groups was .98%.
Collectively savings per customer is up from 2020, but not all groups were statistically
significant in 2021
Unlike 2020, all program groups, save T5, received treatment throughout the entire year. This is the
first full year where everyone was on the same report schedule, and thus, we are beginning to look
at the program group more holistically. The savings for T3, T4, and T6 were statistically significant,
but savings for T1, T2, and T5 were not.
T1: 0.17% or 35.71 kWh per customer
not statistically significant

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 7 of 39

T2: 1.09% or 219.80 kWh per customer
not statistically significant
T3: 1.74% or 264.32 kWh per customer
T4: 1.84% or 302.97 kWh per customer
T5: 0.33% or 24.12 kWh per customer
not statistically significant
T6: 0.98% or 144.28 kWh per customer

Note: T5 was removed from the program group in May, 2020, but we are still calculating residual
savings for T5 on an annual basis at the end of the program year.
See section 1.3 for definitions of the treatment group.
T6, the newest wave, continues to ramp up
It typically takes new waves 3 to 18 months to
2020 and 2021 was the first year that T6 customers in the Program Group were treated throughout
the entire year. We saw an increase in savings percentage and kWh savings per customer. In 2020
the savings percentage for T6 was .56% or 39.67 kWh per customer. In 2021 the savings percentage
for T6 increased to .98% or 144.28 kWh per customer.
Email Adoption Rates Remain Low
15 total pilot customers (T1, T2, T3, T4) switched to email (0.1%)*
151 total new customers (T6) switched to email (0.14%)*
507 total emails were sent in 2021

*from the start of the program through the end of 2021
Opt-Out Rates Stayed Below 0.25%
In 2021, 157 participants opted out of the program a 0.12% opt-out rate. The overall program opt-
out rate was 0.11% in year 3, 0.22% in year 2, and 0.64% in year 1.
Reports Delivered in 2021
Recipients # Email Reports # Paper Reports
February T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 106 115,153
May T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 122 112,929
August T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 126 110,054
November T1, T2, T3, T4, T6 153 107,198
507 445,334

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 8 of 39

1. Program Overview
1.1 Team Structure
The IPC Home Energy Report program has been a joint effort between Idaho Power Company, N.
Utility Consumer Analytics | Harris Computer Corporation (formerly Aclara), and Uplight (formerly
Ecotagious) since 2017. Uplight acquired Ecotagious in July of 2019. In June 2021, N. Harris
Computer Corporation acquired Adaptive Consumer Engagement (ACE) from Aclara Technologies.
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 2021 OBJECTIVES
The following business requirements were captured during an onsite meeting on August 22, 2019
and incorporated into the design of this expansion from the pilot project:
Maximize the total kWh saved, ensuring a UCT of >1 (with a buffer), and maintain high
customer satisfaction levels.
Meet cost-effectiveness guidelines from a Total Resource Cost (TRC) and UCT perspective.
>1 UCT + buffer
Maintain or enhance the current customer satisfaction levels.
Maintain low opt-out rate
Drive positive customer interactions
Maintain low volume of program-related calls to the Customer Interaction Center
Average annual savings of 1-3%
So long as savings are detectable and statistically significant
Encourage customer engagement with energy usage, including utilization of online tools and
lift for other EE programs.

1.2.2 ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES
Monitor persistent savings of T5 group
In the expansion program, T5 customers were removed from treatment because their overall usage
was low and they had not achieved statistically significant savings in the pilot program. IPC would
like to continue to monitor their persistent savings going forward to determine if combining them
with the rest of the treatment population could yield additional combined savings. Because the T5
customers received reports through February of 2020, the savings calculated using a difference-in-
difference methodology can be attributed to treatment in previous years.
What are the combined savings of all treatment groups including T5?
Including T5 in the combined savings for all treatment groups in 2021 increases the cumulative
savings from 16,666,871 kWh to 16,767,446 kWh. This is an increase of 100,575 kWh. The weighted
average savings per customer is 146.85 kWh with T5 and 151.50 kWh without T5.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 9 of 39

1.3 Treatment Groups Defined
1.3.1 DEFINING PROGRAM TERMINOLOGY
In 2021 we made an effort to define program terminology and consistently use that new
terminology when discussing program participation and M&V. This helped to avoid confusion as we
conversed about the nuances of the program groups. Below is an overview of the definitions we
developed. Please keep these terms in mind as you read through the 2021 Program Summary
Report.
Program Group
The program group is the term we use to refer to customers that are in the treatment group
and are actively being treated with reports. These customers by default are also part of the
evaluation group.
Evaluation Group
The evaluation group is the term we use to refer to customers that are in the treatment or
control group and are factored into the savings evaluations. Treatment customers in this
group may or may not be actively receiving reports.
1.3.2 2020 PROGRAM GROUPS
In May of 2020, customers from T1, T2, T3, and T4 that had not been removed through attrition
continued to receive reports. All T5 and C5 customers were removed from the program based on
savings results from the pilot (July 2017 through December 31, 2019). The remaining Idaho Power
customers were run through eligibility criteria (defined in section 2.3.2) to create a new T6 group.
This included some C1, C2, C3, and C4 customers from the pilot that had been removed from
control groups by DNV-GL to expand the pool of eligible customers.
T1: customers with high winter use (electric heating) added in Year One,
T2: customers with high winter use (electric heating) added in Year Two,
T3: customers with high year-round energy use added in Year One,
T4: customers with medium year-round energy use added in Year One, and
T5: customers with low year-round energy use added in Year One, and
T6: expansion customers based on eligibility criteria determined after the pilot.

The total number of customers receiving reports was expanded significantly.
In year one of the pilot program, the total number of customers receiving reports was
approximately 25,500. In year two, the total was around 24,000. In the 2020 expansion, the
addition of the T6 group brought the total number of customers receiving reports up to just
over 125,000. Between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, a total of 125,216 customers
received at least one report throughout the year. 18,128 of those were existing customers
from year 2 and 107,088 were new customers added to treatment in June 2020.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 10 of 39

Table 1 2021 Report Delivery Schedule by Cohort

1.3.3 ELIGIBILITY SCREENING
Eligibility screening for T1, T3, T4, and T5 was initially conducted in year one, and these groups
persisted into year two.
Eligibility screening for T2 was conducted in year one with the T1 group; however, heating source
data for these customers was unavailable until year two, at which time they were re-evaluated for
eligibility.
The eligibility criteria applied in
years one and two were also
applied in year three to
determine the eligible
participants in the T6 group, with
new criteria added based on
learnings from the pilot.
For the expansion in 2020, all T5
and C5 customers were removed
from both participation and
eligibility based on savings results
from the two-year pilot.
Additionally, a third party (DNV-
GL) randomly removed 29,369
customers from C1, C2, C3, and C4 to free them up for possible treatment in the expansion. The
analysis by DNV-GL determined how many customers could be removed from these control groups
while still allowing for statistical significance in calculating savings cumulatively across all treatment
groups.
In April 2020, eligibility screening was conducted to establish a new T6 group from the remaining
Idaho Power customers and those freed up from C1, C2, C3, and C4.
Idaho Power scrubbed the initial count of customers and applied the following filters:
IPC Applied Filters
This list is consistent with filters applied during the pilot phase.
Required Idaho service addresses
Required AMI data
Required residential accounts (I01)
Required meters associated with a home
Removed:
Table 2 - Eligibility Criteria for 2020 Expansion

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 11 of 39

o All non-individual accounts
o Accounts with less than 12 months active history
o Do not contact list
o Net Metering (I84), Master metered accounts (I03) and Time-of-Day (I05)
o Known language barriers
o Built prior to 1860, more than 6 bathrooms, more than 8 bedrooms, homes
with <350 ft2 or >7000 ft2. Used CoreLogic GIS data.
o Used premise type and installation type to remove the following:
Manufactured homes
Multi-family
o Duplicates

The criteria for culling customers during eligibility screening are listed in Table 3.
Table 3 Criteria and Rationale for Culling Customers During Eligibility Screening

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 12 of 39

Figure 2 - Eligibility Funnel for 2020 Expansion

1.4 Customer Data Acquisition/Integration
The initial data acquisition and integration required to begin the program was performed in year
one. This involved using third-
customer usage.
For the 2020 expansion, data acquisition and integration were primarily maintenance, including
receiving weekly electric customer-billing data and regular 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.
One important change that was made to customer data acquisition was the frequency with which
electric AMI data is transferred from IPC to Aclara. In years one and two, AMI data was transferred
weekly; however, in the spring of 2020, the data transfer frequency was updated to daily with data
available to Aclara shortly after midnight each day. The AMI data that was transferred in 2020
generally lagged 5 days from the time AMI data is read from the meter. As a result, AMI data is
available as soon as 5 days after it is read. The value this change brings to the program is the ability
to send reports up to 5 days sooner.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 13 of 39

Table 4 - Data Requirements
Integration Point Description Format Frequency Initiator Recipient
Public Record
Data
Aclara calls Melissa Data for latest
property records for treatment group
customers, selected control
customers, and random sample for
benchmarking.
CSV batch: one-time
historical
(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 daily 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

1.5 Additional Benchmarking Flags (AC and
ESH)
Benchmarking flags are used to cluster customers based on similar home properties for the
compares to the average and efficient homes of similar properties. In the pilot program, the flags
used to identify benchmarking clusters were 1) Square Footage, 2) Home Type, and 3) County.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 14 of 39

Figure 3 - Peer Comparison Section

During the expansion, two dynamic benchmarking flags were added to improve the accuracy of
peer comparisons and those were 4) Air Conditioning and 5) Electric Heating. This way customers
with air conditioning were only compared with other customers with air conditioning and those
customers with electric heating were only compared with other customers with electric heating. This
dynamic design was messaged to customers in small print under the peer comparison charts. The
electric heating flag was used in years one and two to create benchmarking groups for T1 and T2
during the winter months. The benefit of the dynamic benchmarking system is improved
benchmark groupings that consider whether customers have electric heating. This allows for
system also allows the same segmentation with air conditioning.
Figure 4 - Year Three Peer Comparison with AC Flag

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 15 of 39

1.6 Aligning Tip Selection with Season
In order to get timely and relevant tips out to customers at the beginning of a season (either winter
or summer), the standard protocol of reporting on the last quarter or two months, and using the
results to suggest tips for the next quarter or two months, was not as successful in year one as
intended (a customer receiving tips based on the past two months electricity may not find them to
be relevant to the coming two months if there is a change of season).
In 2020, the solution employed was to send a seasonal report at the beginning of the season with
suggested actions/tips based on behavior last season.

1.7 COVID-19 Adjustments
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on both customer behavior and Idaho Power
operations, some adjustments were made to report content:
Tips were reviewed to ensure the use of sensitive messaging regarding increased energy
use.
The promotion of paperless billing, MyAccount, alerts, and energy-related activities for
families were substituted for promotions involving contractor visits.
Customer Interaction Center hours were updated to reflect the availability of agents.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 16 of 39

2. 2021 Program Results
2.1 Objectives: Findings
2.1.1 ENERGY SAVINGS
Cumulative Savings During Treatment Period
In total, we saw an average of 151.50 kWh savings per treatment customer. This added up to a total
combined savings of 16,666,871 kWh across all treatment groups as of December 31, 2021. Savings
calculations from T3, T4 and T6 were statistically significant. See table 5 for savings per cohort. The
aggregate savings with all groups combined were statistically significant
Additionally, the T5 treatment group was treated with home energy reports through February 2020
and did continue to show persistent savings post-treatment. All treatment customers in 2021,
including the T5 post-treatment period, showed a total combined savings of 16,767,446 kWh. See
table 6 for the treatment and persistence savings for the T5 group; and table 7 for combined savings
including T5.
In tables 5, 6, and 7 we included the Avg kWh Savings per Customer, Average savings percent, and
the Cumulative Aggregate Savings (kWh), with IO6 customers included in the Evaluation Group. In
2021, we started including IO6 customers in our Evaluation Group for yearly reporting.
Table 5 2021 Cumulative Savings by Cohort
T12346 Treatment Period: Jan 1, 2021 - Dec 31, 2021
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
w/ IO6
95%
Confidence
Margin of Error
w/ IO6
One-Sided Null
Hypothesis P-
Value w/IO6
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings (kWh)
w/ IO6
Winter Heating
T1 35.71 0.17% 351.76 0.421146834 183,325
Winter Heating
T2 219.80 1.09% 363.30 0.117844183 981,868
Year-Round - T3 264.32 1.74% 176.04 0.001625822 1,378,427
Year-Round - T4 302.97 1.84% 161.34 0.000116435 740,448
Expansion - T6 144.28 0.98% 56.01 2.21754E-07 13,382,802
16,666,871

Table 6 2021 Cumulative Savings by T5
T5 Persistent Period: Jan 1, 2021 - Dec 31, 2021
Cohort Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
Savings Percent
w/ IO6
Aggregate
Savings (kWh)
w/ IO6
Year-Round - T5 24.12 0.33% 100,575

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 17 of 39

Table 7 2021 Combined cumulative Savings for all Treatment Groups including T5
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
Savings Percent
w/ IO6
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings (kWh)
w/ IO6

2.1.2 MONTHLY SAVINGS BY TREATMENT GROUP
- Monthly Average kWh Savings per Cohort
T1 T2 T3 T4 T6
Jan 2021 38.61 51.75 19.11 36.48 13.87
Feb 2021 26.94 45.94 14.22 26.41 13.06
Mar 2021 -11.05 58.92 11.34 18.89 15.01
Apr 2021 -26.91 41.30 12.56 21.12 9.21
May 2021 5.07 28.01 19.08 23.95 12.37
Jun 2021 9.84 -8.91 9.17 28.99 11.28
Jul 2021 18.93 13.47 35.88 32.23 9.90
Aug 2021 12.53 0.07 17.11 23.76 10.65
Sep 2021 6.95 -6.46 20.97 22.56 9.38
Oct 2021 -1.40 5.69 24.42 11.87 9.58
Nov 2021 -2.75 -6.40 19.80 17.42 9.47
Dec 2021 17.83 32.81 24.24 34.39 11.55

- Note: Monthly Savings by Treatment Group includes IO6 customers, but not optimized customers in the Evaluation Group

2.1.3 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.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 18 of 39

Pilot Year One
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.
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 some potential
T1 participants due to a lack of adequate county benchmarks, the sample size at the time of the first
report was 25,677.
Pilot Year Two
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.
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.
Program Year 2020
The treatment customers from the pilot continued treatment (except T5) and a new treatment
group and new control group were created to expand the number of customers in treatment. After
optimization of the existing treatment groups was complete, a total of 18,492 customers were
identified as existing customers eligible for treatment in year three. The following changes were
made to the existing treatment customers:
1. The T5 treatment group was removed from participation because this group showed the
lowest propensity to save energy during the pilot.
2. All remaining treatment customers from the pilot (years one and two) were moved to a
consolidated quarterly treatment schedule.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 19 of 39

3. The C5 control group was removed from eligibility for treatment.
The following changes were made to the existing control groups:
The C1, C2, C3, and C4 control groups were reduced in size significantly. 75,973 customers were
randomly removed from these four control groups to free them up for inclusion in the T6
experimental design that is freed up to be randomly allocated to T6 and C6 during the 2020
expansion. The number of customers removed from each control group was determined by DNV-GL
with consideration given to the impact their removal would have on the statistical significance of
calculated savings across all treatment groups. See table 9 for a record of the changes made to the
C1, C2, C3, and C4 control groups.

Table 9 - Reduction in Existing Control Groups
Group
Original Control
Group Size
Reduced New
Control Group
Size
C1 12,090 1,450
C2 5,024 800
C3 35,194 3,520
C4 31,995 2,560

In the spring of 2020, a new wave was created with 108,498 in the treatment group (T6) and 14,744
in the control group (C6) based on eligibility criteria applied to the remaining population.

Program Year 2021
In 2021, changes were made to the way move outs were included in the evaluations group based on
a suggestion from DNV Consultant, Craig Williamson.
Old Method - Prior to the Q3 2021 QMR, only customers that were active through the end of the
analysis period were included in the evaluation group. This means that if a customer moved out in
the third month of the quarter, their savings for the first two months of the quarter were not
measured.
New Method - Starting in Q3 2021, data for customers who moved out during the analysis period are
included up until the date they moved out. This is done consistently for both treatment and control
groups.
Impact - Customers with less than three months will have lower consumption. This (appropriately)
leads to a slightly lower average savings per customer, but it increases the total savings, since we
are multiplying that average by the total count of customers who were active for any part of the
quarter.
We used the same approach for the 2021 PSR analysis. Customers were included in the evaluation
group up until the date they moved out.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 20 of 39

2.1.4 COMBINED SAVINGS FOR NEW CUSTOMERS (T6) VS. EXISTING CUSTOMERS (T1234)
The T6 group is much larger than other treatment groups and more closely represents the entire
Idaho Power customer base than any other group. T6 alone accounts for over 80% of the total
treatment group, whereas T1-T5 combined account for under 20%. Savings for T6 have ramped up
and are performing well.
An analysis of savings within the new customer group compared to the existing customer group
found that in 2021, T6 saved an average of 144.28 kWh per customer. T1, T2, T3, and T4, saved an
average of 190.27 kWh per customer and T5 had a residual average savings of 24.12 kWh per
customer. The combined average savings for all treatment groups was 146.85 kWh per customer.
2021 was the first full year where all waves were on the same report schedule, and thus, we are
beginning to look at the program group more holistically.

2.2 Email Reports
2.2.1 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. With the expansion of
the HER program to include the T6 group in June 2020, 106,941 (new) customers received welcome
letters introducing them to the program. The welcome letters also contained information regarding
the option to receive reports by email instead of print.
As of December 31, 2021, 153 customers have opted to receive email reports rather than print
reports.
Figure 6 - HER Header with Email Sign-Up Information
Figure 7 - HER Welcome Letter FAQ regarding Email Option

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 21 of 39

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.
2.2.2 DELIVERY, OPEN, AND BOUNCE RATES
In 2021, a total of 507 email reports had been sent to Idaho customers and seeds (i.e., IPC
employees receiving an eHER in order to evaluate it). Of these, all 507 emails were successfully
delivered, and a total of 374 were opened. This is a 74% open rate which is stronger than average.
This is likely due to the opt-in nature of the email reports. The total clickthrough rate (that is, the
rate of clicks on links contained within the emails) was 9.4 percent.

2.3 Customer Feedback
2.3.1 CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE CALLS AND OPT-OUT RATES
Table 10 - CSA Calls and Opt-Out Rates
2018 2019 2020 2021
Total Calls 411 246 1,087 660
Opt-Out Calls 0.64% 0.22% 0.12% 0.17%

In 2021, IPC customer solutions advisors (CSAs) received 660 calls related to the HER program,
compared to 1,087 calls in 2020, 246 calls in 2019, and 411 calls in 2018. The 2021 opt-out rate was
0.17 percent compared to 0.12 percent in 2021, 0.22 percent in pilot year two, and 0.64 percent in
pilot year one.
From January to December 2021, CSAs classified each call they received into one of eight categories:
General
Profile Update
Opt-Out
Escalation
Non-Program-Related
Switching to Email Reports
Switch to Paper
Other
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 22 of 39
Table 11 Reasons for Calls to CSAs in 2021 by Category
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tota
l
General 2 45 4 2 34 6 2 16 2 1 24 2 140
Profile
Update 3 46 8 2 29 4 1 19 5 1 13 1 132
Opt Out
Escalation 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
Non-
Program-
Related
13 22 7 5 37 13 9 35 11 7 28 3 190
Switch to
Email 4 15 0 0 13 1 0 23 9 0 5 1 61
Switch to
Paper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Other
Total
Reasons*26 196 24 9 144 28 14 121 28 24 96 8 718
indicates report month
2018 2019 2020 2021
Total Calls*411 246 1,087 660
*Some customers call in for more than one reason which is why there is a variance in Total Reasons and Total Calls.
Other
Figure 8 - 2021 Calls by Type

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 23 of 39

Following are some sample notes from CSAs regarding phone calls from customers about the HER
program:

Home & App profiles. Family is working and schooling from home plus kids game on

is very efficient except for the heating..has ceiling cable..slowly moving to mini splits so that

mer knows she is a high electric user, has things like oxygen on 24/7 - does not feel the

2ppl here now 9, 12,000 sqft, 2 story, full basement, 3 furnaces, 1 is a boiler, 3 AC, heated
floors, in home biz x2, salon, 2 laundry rooms, 14ftx7ft 4ft deep heated swim spa. Filled out

HER Report Appliances & Lights Report wanted to know how calculated, based on
usage and mathematical algorithm. Recommended My Acct sign up and completing home
profile. We compared past reports and I verified sq ft for home is correct. 10 rooms have
electr

reports are insensitive because they do not consider elderly use of oxygen 24/7. She requested

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 24 of 39
2.4 Additional Metrics
2.4.1 MICROSITE ENGAGEMENT
Table 12 Microsite Activity by Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tota
l
Unique
Clicks 4 22 32 22 42 14 2 10 52 76 183 92 551
Total Clicks 4 27 32 22 45 14 2 16 53 76 184 92 567
Unique
Page Views 10 65 5 10 40 10 2 38 10 8 49 25 272
Total Page
Views 10 72 5 14 42 18 2 41 17 8 50 26 305
indicates report month
From January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, there were a total of 272 unique page views (that is,
people who navigated to the site) and 552 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.
2.4.2 MY ACCOUNT WEB ACTIVITY
My Account
slightly more than the controls. The treatment group has been an average of 0.07 percent more
active on My Account than the controls since January 2017.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 25 of 39
Figure 9 - My Account Activity Treatment vs Control Program to Date
2.4.3 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 permanent attrition
rate in 2021 was 7.82% with 10,546 customers either opting out or being permanently removed for
one of the following reasons: move-outs, incompatible location type, or incompatible property type.
This is down from 2020 when permanent attrition rate was 9.4% with 11,850 customers either
opting out or being permanently removed. Non-deliverables were removed prior to July 2021 but
were kept in post July 2021.
NEW CUSTOMER (T6) ATTRITION RATES
Table 13 - T6 Attrition Rates in 2021
T6 Feb May Aug Nov Total
Permanent Removals
Move Outs 1,501 1,702 2,199 2,265 7,667
Location 377 0 0 0 377
Temporary Removals
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 513 374 901 996 2,784
USPS - Non Deliverables 314 0 0 0 314
Total Removals 2,748 2,146 3,150 3,915 11,959
Insufficient Benchmarking 377 18 5 19 419
Reports Delivered 98,238 96,277 93,791 91,233 379,539
2 USPS Non Deliverables were temporarily removed from eligibility each month; then those customers regained eligibility for treatment the
following month until after October of 2020. Starting with the November reports, any customer listed as non-deliverable was permanently
removed from the program. In May of 2021 we started treating the undeliverable customers again which is why you see the USPS-Non
Deliverables count drop to 0 starting in May.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 26 of 39

EXISTING CUSTOMER (T12345) ATTRITION RATES
Table 14 - T1234 Attrition Rates in 2021
T12345 Feb May Aug Nov Total
Permanent Removals
Move Outs 269 214 298 271 1,052
AMI Insufficient/Negative
Usage/Unsupported Rate Code (IO6) 0 0 0 103 103
Location 0 0 0 0 0
Property 0 0 57 0 57
Opt Outs 4 7 1 1 13
Temporary Removals
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 65 48 132 105 350
USPS - Non Deliverables 47 0 0 0 47
Total Removals 485 225 356 375 1,441
Insufficient Benchmarking 100 4 2 4 110
Reports Delivered 16,915 16,652 16,263 15,965 65,795

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 27 of 39

3. Process Improvements, Lessons
Learned, and Future Considerations
3.1 Process Improvements
Process Opt-Outs Before the End of the Quarter

In 2021 we realized that there was a discrepancy between the number of opt-outs coming through
the CSA reporting system (currently captured through Surveygizmo) and the number opt-outs
repancy was due to the timing of when the opt-outs
were processed vs when the opt-outs were being captured in the CSA Report.

Historically opt-outs were processed in batches right before the next quarterly report was sent. For
example, if a new opt-out was tracked in the CSA Report after the November 2020 report, the opt-
result, the quarterly opt-y opt-
whether customers were successfully opted out of the program in a timely manner.

Starting in Q4 of 2021, we began addressing this difference by processing all opt-outs received
through Surveygizmo at the end of the quarter. This approach should sync up the opt-out data.

Improved Home Size Data

In the HER approval process, IPC noticed a relatively high number of samples were missing home
size information. This was a concern as one of the eligibility filters used in the expansion should
have removed all new participants without home size data. As a result, Uplight ran a report and
found that 14,838 customers had unknown HomeSize expressed in square feet
unclear why these customers were included in the expansion, we wanted to improve the accuracy
of the reports and improve the customer experience. To accomplish this, we implemented a multi-
step solution to reduce the number of customers without HomeSize data. The first step was to
ingest supplemental home size data from IPC. This brought the unknown HomeSize count down to
7,238 customers. From there, Uplight added additional 3rd party data, bringing it down to 5,020
customers. We then included an insert with the August HERs and followed up directly to customers
through an email campaign on 9/22. This brought the unknown HomeSize count down to 4,763
customers.

Through these efforts, we were able to reduce the number of customers with unknown HomeSize
by 67.9%.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 28 of 39

Clarifying Language to Help Reduce Risk with Program Support Changes

In 2021 we saw numerous changes in the program's support with the unexpected passing and
departure(s) of key program support team members. As new team members were onboarding, we
realized there were inconsistencies and ambiguity in the terminology we use to discuss the
program. To help reduce confusion and risk, we began clarifying and documenting our program
terminology.

Example: The 2021 PSR defines Program Group and Evaluation Group. We also started defining
these terms at the beginning of each quarterly monitoring report (QMR) as a refresher.

Included NCOA group (USPS undeliverables) in Program Group

Prior to May of 2021, customers flagged as NCOA/USPS undeliverable were moved out of the
Program Group. Since they were retained in the Evaluation Group but no longer received reports,
this created potential for diluting savings. In April, IPC compared the NCOA list with the mailing
request, Uplight developed a solution that allowed us to deliver reports to these participants and
keep them in the Program Group.

From the May report throughout 2021, Uplight paid first class postage and worked with IPC and the
printer to break these customers into their own send list so they could continue receiving reports.
Immediately after implementing, this process improvement allowed us to treat an additional 128
customers in May 2021. To-
notable quantity.

3.2 Lessons Learned
In 2021 there were several lessons learned. These learnings serve as a way to identify future
program improvement opportunities.
Two Filters Were Missed During the April 2020 T6 and C6 Customer Eligibility Selection
While preparing the extracts, Uplight discovered two filters had not been applied during the April
2020 eligibility process for selecting T6 and C6 customers. That resulted in 3,323 service point IDs
that were previously removed from C1, C3, C4 due to optimization in 2018 and insufficient
benchmarks in 2017, being selected into groups T6 and C6.
It's important to note that the "Optimization" and "Insufficient Benchmark" customers who made it
into T6/C6 are all from C1, C3, and C4, so they are all customers who have never received treatment
until they were added to T6/C6, meaning experimentally, that's still valid.

"Insufficient Benchmark": The "Insufficient Benchmark" applied to customers that did not
have sufficient data to treat back in 2017. We now have enough data to treat these

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 29 of 39

customers. In terms of customer experience, these customers will have the same report
experience as other customers in T6 and C6.
Uplight identified attributes that could potentially lead to lower
savings, then removed those customers from the T&C group to optimize savings. For a full
explanation of optimization, reference year 2 of the Program Summary Reports posted
February 26, 2020.
In terms of next steps, we recommend that both groups of customers remain in the evaluation
group. As mentioned above, since the customers did not receive treatment prior to being added to
T6/C6, so experimentally, they are still valid.
Updating Profiles with More Than One SPID

In 2021 we received a handful of customer inquiries about profile updates not appearing on their
reports. After digging into the accounts, we discovered that these customers all had more than one
SPID. In each case, the customer was updating the profile for the wrong service address. We are
now aware of this issue and IPC has conducted training with the Customer Solutions Advisors (CSAs)
who respond to HER inquiries.

No Statistically Significant Difference Between Including and Not Including Net Metering
(IO6) Customers in Evaluation Group

Although IPC filtered out net metering customers during the expansion phase in 2020, there has
been and will continue to be a significant number of customers who choose to install new customer
generation (CG). Late in 2020, IPC decided to remove new CG customers from the Program Group.
The HER team spent a significant amount of time deciding how to handle these customers in
relation to the Evaluation Group. As a test, 2021 savings were calculated with and without IO6
customers included in the Evaluation Group.

When results were compared, we found that there was no statistically significant variance. All
treatment groups were within the 95% confidence margin of error. With that in mind, we
recommend including IO6 customers in the Evaluation Group moving forward to keep the integrity
of the trial.

3.3 Future Considerations
Based on the findings from 2021, Utility Consumer Analytics/Uplight has the following
recommendations for enhancing the program in 2021 and beyond:
Utility Consumer Analytics/Uplight to Implement Smart Notifications for CSA Escalations
Overall, the number of HER escalations is quite low - 2017 and only
3 of those were in 2021. However, one escalation call received in 2021 brought an opportunity to
light. Essentially, when customers call in with a HER related escalation, the CSA inputs notes on the
call into a CSA survey. From there, the only way that the IPC Program Specialist knows about the

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 30 of 39

escalation is through the weekly CSA Report that captures all CSA surveys. Escalations should be
responded to quickly, and since the current process relies on a CSA Report which is pulled once a
week, there may be a delay between when the escalation call takes place and when the IPC Program
Specialist can act on the escalation.
that an email is immediately sent to the IPC Program Specialist when an escalation is submitted to
Utility Consumer Analytics/Uplight through a CSA survey. This will allow the Program Specialist to
quickly respond within one business day to any calls marked as an escalation. Uplight is currently
investigating the practicality of implementing this change.
Send eHERs All Customers with Emails

Currently only customers that opt-out of paper reports and into email reports receive emails.
Uplight has the ability to start sending eHERs to all customers with email addresses. IPC could opt to
send email reports in addition to paper reports. Customers would still be able to opt-into only
receiving email reports if that is their preference.

Making this change would allow for an additional low-cost touch point for customers. Due to the
current email reports being opt-in only, we would expect that proactively sending email reports to
all customers would decrease the email open rate and click-through-rate but increase the overall
email engagement.

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 31 of 39

4. Appendices
3.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports
A-1. SAMPLE PRINT HER ALWAYS-ON TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 32 of 39

A-2. SAMPLE PRINT HER A/C TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 33 of 39

A-3. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT ALWAYS-ON TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 34 of 39

A-4. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT A/C TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 35 of 39

A-5. SAMPLE PRINT REPORT APPLIANCES & LIGHTS TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 36 of 39

A-6. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT APPLIANCES & LIGHTS TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 37 of 39

A-7. SAMPLE PRINT REPORT HEATING TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 38 of 39

A-8. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT HEATING TIPS

www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 39 of 39

3.2 Appendix B: 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 May 10, 2021 January 1, 2021 March 31, 2021
Q2 July 30, 2021 April 1, 2021 - June 30, 2021
Q4 February 5, 2022 October 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021

Submitted by:
February 2022
Idaho Power
Commercial Energy-saving Kit
Program Summary Report
2021
Sponsored by:
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 20212
AM Conservation 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................5
From AM Conservation ......................................................................................9
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Overview .............11
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Materials ..............13
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Implementation ..15
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Impact ..................16
A. Water and Energy Savings Summary ................................................17
B. Participant Response ...........................................................................17
Appendix A .......................................................................................................22
Projected Savings from Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Retrofit .......................22
Projected Savings from Advanced Power Strip (APS) Installation .....23
Projected Savings from Exit Sign LED Retrofits ....................................24
Projected Savings from 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .......................25
Projected Savings from 8-watt BR30 Light Bulb Retrofit .....................26
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit .....................27
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .................28
Appendix B ........................................................................................................29
Idaho Cities & Towns Served .....................................................................29
Oregon Cities & Towns Served ..................................................................29
Idaho Power Regions Served ....................................................................30
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 20214Executive Summary
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t

K
i
t
AM Conservation 5Executive Summary
The Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program is designed to serve some of the hardest-to-
reach customers within Idaho Power's service territory: small business customers. The program cost-
effectively captures energy savings by providing high-quality measures and energy efficient education
to Idaho Power commercial customers. As a result, small businesses develop efficient behaviors while
reducing energy costs. The program acts as a first-point of contact, establishing a positive customer
relationship, and encouraging participation in other programs within Idaho Power’s commercial portfolio.
This report summarizes the 2021 Energy-saving Kit Program. The program reached a total of 906
small business within Idaho Power’s service territory, 868 small businesses located in Idaho, and an
additional 38 small businesses in Oregon. Funding was provided by Idaho Power.
The program achieved or exceeded expectations. Results are listed below.
Program Achievements
1. Provided commercial energy-saving measures and energy-efficiency education to 868 Idaho and
38 Oregon small businesses.
• Affected all five regions of the Idaho Power service territory
• Affected 71 cities & towns in Idaho
• Affected 10 cities & towns in Oregon
2. Generated residential energy and water savings. Projected annual savings
• 56,390 kWh Restaurant kit savings
• 152,159 kWh Office kit savings
• 8,402 kWh Retail kit savings
3. Supported Idaho Power with their diverse outreach and distribution methods.
• Idaho Power customized enrollment portal
• Idaho Power employee log-in and enrollment tracking
• Multiple enrollment methods, including kits handed out and kits shipped directly to customers
4. Designed and provided complementary educational materials and incentives to maximize
installation of targeted efficiency measures.
5. Maintained data collection and management services to collect and process audit ready
data from participating small businesses.
6. Maintained tracking and reporting of program participation.
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 20218Direct-to-Customer Programs
Of
f
i
c
e

K
i
t
AM Conservation 9Direct-to-Customer Programs
AM Conservation (AMC), a Franklin Energy Company, has been in the business of designing and
implementing energy and water efficiency programs for nearly 3 decades. We have taken this time
to build an expert team of industry professionals to deliver a seamless program in line with the
needs of our clients.
We designed the Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program in our Nevada program
center from the ground up. Working in conjunction with Idaho Power, we identified goals, desired
outcomes of the program, and specific customization. The result is an engaging program that
delivers measurable resource savings. The Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program
features a proven blend of innovative education, comprehensive implementation services, and
hands-on activities that put efficiency knowledge to work in small businesses throughout Idaho
Power’s service territory.
The commercial segment is an important customer group. These customers face well-known
barriers to participation in energy efficiency programs, including lack of awareness, time, and
capital to explore energy saving opportunities. Our solution provides a streamlined approach,
making it easy for small business customers to begin enjoying the benefits of energy efficiency
education and installation of measures. The ease of the program establishes a positive customer
relationship, and encourages engagement in additional energy efficiency programs.
The Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program is a reflection of true teamwork. On behalf
of the entire implementation team at AMC, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to design
and implement this innovative program for Idaho Power. It has been a pleasure working with you.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Jennings
Program Manager
From AM Conservation
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202110Program Overview
Re
t
a
i
l

K
i
t
AM Conservation 11Program Overview
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit
Program Overview
The Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program
aims to cost-effectively capture energy
savings in small businesses located in Idaho
Power’s service territory. The program achieves
immediate savings through a kit of self-install
measures delivered directly to a customer’s
door step. A hands-on educational component
provides the basis for participants to make
modifications in energy use, and establish
sustained energy conserving behaviors,
resulting in life-long behavior change and
savings. A carefully designed survey allows
Idaho Power to claim savings on measure
installation, and is the key component of
EM&V activities.
The program was designed and targeted to
reach three different small business segments:
restaurant, office, and retail. Three different
kit types were developed for this purpose.
Each kit contained energy efficiency measures
specifically curated for the small business
type, as well as educational materials and
installation surveys. Educational materials
include a Quick Start Guide, light switch
reminder stickers, an illustrated installation
guide, and cross promotional inserts. Each kit
and accompanying materials are customized
for the targeted business type, featuring
prominent and recognizable Idaho Power
branding to ensure program adoption.
The program was offered throughout Idaho
Power’s service territory, and distributed by
Idaho Power employees. Kits were distributed
either through Energy Advisors in the field
working with small businesses, or through
the Idaho Power Customer Call Center, who
conducted an outreach campaign to eligible
customers. Enrollments were then submitted
to AMC, and kits were shipped directly to the
customer’s place of business.
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202112Program Materials
Changing Behaviors
Behavioral changes have been shown to be a very

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

method to help reduce energy use and increase p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.

Get your employees involved in your organization’s
energy saving strategy.
During closed hours turn the thermostat up during
the cooling season, and down during the heating
season.
Try to do one thing each day that will result in a
savings of water and energy. Don't worry if the savings
is minimal. Every bit counts.
Turn off lights in offices, storage rooms and
break areas that are not in use. Light switch reminder
stickers are included in the kit.
Turn off cash registers and computers when
the store is closed.
QUICK STEP1
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND ENERGY
START HERE
QUICK START GUIDE
Español en el otro lado
This program is offered by Resource Action Programs, a Frankli
n

E
n
e
r
g
y

c
o
m
p
a
n
y
,

a
n
d

i
s

f
u
n
d
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

Power customers.
118829
QUICK STEP5
QUICK STEP3
LIGHTING
LIGHTING
BEHAVIORS
AVERAGE RETAIL ENERGY USE
Office Equipment2%Heating 2%Water Heating 1%
Computers3%
Refrigeration27%
Lighting20%
Cooling13%
Other16%
Ventilation17%
DON'T FORGET
TO RETURN YOUR
INSTALLATION
SURVEY FOR A
CHANCE TO WIN!
Exit Sign LED Retrofit Kits
Exit signs operate for 24 hours a day. When using

i
n
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t

or fluorescent bulbs to illuminate those signs, the

e
n
e
r
g
y

required can add up to significant costs and may

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

frequent bulb replacement. Install the Exit Sign L
E
D

R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t

Kits to save money on your energy bill, as well as reduce yo
u
r

maintenance costs.
Detailed instructions on how to install
your Exit Sign LED Retrofit Kits are
provided in your kit.
QUICK STEP4
TIP: Before installing, review enclosed manufacturer's insta
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

instructions for Bayonet, Intermediate or Candelabra base
d

L
E
D

screw-in Exit Fixture Retrofit Kit in their entirety.
LIGHTING
Bathroom Faucet Aerators
Bathroom sinks are a great place to cut down on water w
a
s
t
e
.

The bathroom aerator provided in your kit is easy to insta
l
l

and still provides plenty of water for washing hands. Aer
a
t
o
r
s

create billions of micro-bubbles which helps soap work m
o
r
e

effectively while rinsing more cleanly.
Install the new Bathroom Faucet Aerator from your kit.
Certified byCSA GroupModel #A1015VP-1.5PC1.5 gpm
TIP: Check faucets for leaks. A faucet that drips 30 tim
e
s

p
e
r

minute can waste over 1,000 gallons of water per year.
LED BR30 Light Bulbs
LED BR30s have a bright glow that comes on instantly, so y
o
u
r

business looks its best from morning to night. LEDs last up
t
o

25,000 hours which means you can save time and money o
n

replacing burned out bulbs.
Replace your most-used incandescent or CFL BR
3
0

reflector bulbs with the two LED BR30s from yo
u
r

k
i
t
.
LED Bulbs
Did you know that 90% of an incandescent bulb’s e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e

is wasted as heat? All that heat goes right into you
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

and increases the energy used for cooling your bu
s
i
n
e
s
s

i
n

t
h
e

summer. LED bulbs use 70-90% less energy than
i
n
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t

bulbs and can last up to 25 times longer. Unlike C
F
L
s
,

L
E
D
s

d
o

not contain mercury so they can be disposed of
w
i
t
h

n
o
r
m
a
l

waste or recycled. LEDs are also dimmable and work with m
o
s
t

modern dimmers.
Replace your most-used 60-watt bulbs with the 9-w
a
t
t

LED bulbs from your kit.
TIP: For the most savings, place LED bulbs in fixtures that a
r
e

on for at least 2-3 hours a day. Don’t wait for an existing bu
l
b

t
o

burn out; save the most by replacing them now.
TIP: LEDs are a great option for recessed and track lighting.
You get high quality lighting with less heat and fewer trips u
p

the ladder to replace hard-to-reach bulbs.
COMMERCIAL ENERGY
SAVINGS KIT PROGRAMMakes Goo
d

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
e
n
s
e
SAVING

E
N
E
R
G
Y
118799
TO WIN a
$100 eGift Card!
FOR A CHANCE
SURVEY
For contest details visit Idaho
P
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
.

COMPLETE AND RET
U
R
N

T
H
I
S

Source: Energy Information Administration, Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Survey—2016.
Qu
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
AM Conservation 13Program Materials
Restaurant Kit
Pre-rinse Spray Valve
Three 9-watt LEDs
Two Exit Sign Retrofits
Two Kitchen Faucet Aerators
Two Bathroom Faucet Aerators
Office Kit
Two 9-watt LEDs
Two Exit Sign Retrofits
Advanced Power Strip
Kitchen Faucet Aerator
Two Bathroom Faucet Aerators
Retail
Two 9-watt LEDs
Two 8-watt LED BR30s
Two Exit Sign Retrofits
Bathroom Faucet Aerator
Program materials include a securely packaged kit filled with participant-focused measures and
materials, Idaho Power energy efficiency program cross promotion, and Idaho Power branding.
A Quick Start Guide is included in each kit, and provides the educational component of the
program. The Quick Start Guide identifies multiple tips and modifications in energy use that, when
implemented, establish sustained energy conserving behaviors. The simple guide utilizes motivational
tools and strategies intended to affect the consumer’s energy use behaviors. The installation of the
kit’s measures, combined with the promoted behavioral changes, results in energy savings that are
captured by the installation survey.
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit
Program Materials
Quick Start Guide
Survey
Light Switch Reminder Stickers
Idaho Power Small Business Program Cross-Promo
Installation Instructions
Included Efficiency Measures
Included Educational Materials
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202114Program Implementation
118729 Idaho Power Restaurant Illustrated In
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
_
H
A
L
F
_
S
I
Z
E
.
i
n
d
d

1
4/24/18 10:16 AM
always oncontrol
switched
118769 Idaho Power Office Illustrated Instructio
n
s
_
H
A
L
F
_
S
I
Z
E
.
i
n
d
d

1
4/24/18 10:08 AM
118809 Idaho Power Retail Illustrated Instructions_HALF
_
S
I
Z
E
.
i
n
d
d

1
4/24/18 10:25 AM
2
D
E
B
F
G H
A
:05-:10
1
3
4
B
F2
E
C
C
3X
3X
?5
6
6
D
D
A
A
G
GH
118809 Idaho Power Retail Illustrated Instruc
t
i
o
n
s
_
H
A
L
F
_
S
I
Z
E
.
i
n
d
d

2
4/24/18 10:25 AM
4
2
3
4
A
1
A
1
A
2
3
4
A
118809 Idaho Power Retail Illustrated Instruction
s
_
H
A
L
F
_
S
I
Z
E
.
i
n
d
d

4
4/24/18 10:25 AM
IL
L
U
S
T
R
A
T
E
D

IN
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

G
U
I
D
E
S
AM Conservation 15Program Implementation
An introductory outbound call campaign implemented by the Idaho Power call center, supported by
the information on the Idaho Power website, merited positive results. Small business owners were
able to enroll in the program with ease, resulting in a steady demand for the program.
Energy-saving kit participation was processed and tracked at the AMC program center. The program
website, a toll-free number, Idaho Power Energy Advisors in the field and the Idaho Power customer
service department provided convenient methods for interested small businesses to order a kit and
participate in the program.
Orders were tracked and managed from all outreach and enrollment sources. Program materials and
products were packaged and addressed for individual small business delivery. All program modules
receive a unique ID number to improve the accuracy of data tracking and reduce the amount of
information required from respondents.
All enrollments and associated shipping & fulfillment data were managed by AMC's proprietary
program database.
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit
Program Implementation
16 Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 2021Program Impact
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving
Kit Program Impact
The program impacted 71 cities and towns throughout Idaho and 10 cities and towns in Oregon. As
illustrated below, the program successfully educated participating small businesses about energy and
water efficiency while generating resource savings through the installation of efficiency measures in
small business facilities. Installation survey data was collected to track savings and gather program
satisfaction data.
Total Number of Participants: 906
Number of Restaurant Participants: 218
Number of Office Participants: 635
Number of Retail Participants: 53
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Pre-rinse Spray Valve retrofit:1,247,178 4,988,712 gallons*
Measure Life: 4 years 27,878 111,511 kWh
Projected reduction from Advanced Power Strip installation:38,475 153,899 kWh
Product Life: 4 years
Projected reduction from Exit Sign LED retrofits:45,123 721,970 kWh
Measure Life: 16 years
Projected reduction from 9-watt LED Light Bulbs:25,002 325,025 kWh
Measure Life: 13 years
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
*Based on 100% installation rate
AM Conservation 17Program Impact
A. Water and Energy Savings Summary
As part of the program, participants installed retrofit efficiency measures in their small businesses.
The 906 participating businesses are expected to save the following resource totals. Savings from these
actions and new behaviors will continue for many years to come.
B. Participant Response
Participant response to Idaho Power’s outreach methods and interpersonal communication resulted
in a positive response for the program. Participants utilized the Quick Start Guide to choose which
measures to install, and which savings actions to take. Illustrated instruction guides made retrofit
projects easy to complete.
Projected reduction from 8-watt BR30 LED Light Bulbs:6,797 88,364 kWh
Measure Life: 13 years
Projected reduction from Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit:1,805,846 18,058,460 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 78,213 782,131 kWh
Projected reduction from Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit:2,363,734 23,637,339 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 75,263 752,631 kWh
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS:5,416,758 46,684,511 gallons
296,751 2,935,530 kWh
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS PER BUSINESS:5,979 51,528 gallons
328 3,240 kWh
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202120Appendices
118709



WANT

T
O

S
A
V
E

M
O
R
E
?
118999
Ki
t

F
l
y
e
r
s
AM Conservation 21Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Retrofit ............................22
Projected Savings from Advanced Power Strip (APS) Installation ...........23
Projected Savings from Exit Sign LED Retrofits .........................................24
Projected Savings from 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ............................25
Projected Savings from 8-watt BR30 Light Bulb Retrofit ..........................26
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit ...........................27
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit ......................28
Appendix B
Idaho Cities & Towns Served ..........................................................................29
Oregon Cities & Towns Served .......................................................................29
Idaho Power Regions Served .........................................................................30
Appendices
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202122Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Retrofit
Pre-rinse Spray Valve retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Number of Restaurant participants: 218
Deemed Savings: 127.88 kWh 1
Estimated annual water savings: 5,721 gallons2
Measure life: 4.0 years2
Projected Electricity Savings:
Pre-rinse spray valve retrofit projects an annual reduction of:27,878 kWh3
Pre-rinse spray valve retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:111,511 kWh
Potential Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
Pre-rinse spray valve retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,247,178 gallons
Pre-rinse spray valve retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:4,988,712 gallons
1 Provided by Idaho Power. Regional Technical Forum (RTF). ComcookingPreRinseSprayValve_v2_4.xlsm. Adjusted for estimated electric water heat saturation and
installation rates.
2 Based on Regional Technical Forum.
3 Pre-rinse spray valve water savings formula (Savings per year x Participants) .
AM Conservation 23Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Advanced Power Strip inputs and assumptions
Number of Office Participants:635
Deemed Savings:60.59 kWh1
Product life:4 years2
Projected Electricity Savings:
The APS retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 38,475 kWh3
The APS retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 153,899 kWh4
1. Provided by Idaho Power. RTF. ComSmartPlugPower_v3_4.xlsm. Adjusted for estimated installation rate.
2 Based on Regional Technical Forum.
3 Advanced Power Strip savings formula (Deemed savings x Participants).
4 Advanced Power Strip savings formula (Deemed savings x Participants x Product Life).
Projected Savings from Advanced Power Strip (APS) Installation
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202124Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Exit Sign LED Retrofits inputs and assumptions
Lamps per participant:2
Number of Restaurant Participants:218
Number of Office Participants:635
Number of Retail Participants:53
Deemed Savings:24.90 kWh1
Product life:16 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Exit Sign LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 45,123 kWh2
The Exit Sign LED retrofit projects an lifetime reduction of: 721,970 kWh3
1 Provided by Idaho Power. Calculated based on estimated existing fixture wattages and installation rates.
2 Exit Sign LED Retrofits savings formula (Deemed savings x Lamps per kit x Participants).
3 Exit Sign LED Retrofits savings formula (Deemed savings x Lamps per kit x Participants x Product Life).
Projected Savings from Exit Sign LED Retrofits
AM Conservation 25Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per Restaurant participant : 3
Number of Restaurant participants:218
Deemed Restaurant savings per lamp (average kWh): 18.04 kWh1
Lamps per Office participant: 2
Number of Office participants:635
Deemed Office savings per lamp (average kWh): 9.33 kWh1
Lamps per Retail participant: 2
Number of Retail participants:53
Deemed Retail savings per lamp (average kWh): 12.86 kWh1
Measure life: 13.00 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 25,002 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of: 325,025 kWh3
1 Provided by Idaho Power. Savings calculated based on a 9W LED replacing a 13W CFL. Hours of use vary by building type. Adjusted for estimated installation rates.
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 Light Bulb Retrofit
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202126Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
8-watt LED BR30 Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per Retail participant: 2
Number of Retail participants:53
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 64.13 kWh1
Measure life: 13.0 years1
Potential Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
The LED BR30 retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 6,797 kWh2
The LED BR30 retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:88,364 kWh3
1 Provided by Idaho Power. Savings calculated based on a 8 w LED replacing a 35 W halogen. Based on 3,800 hours of use. Adjusted for estimated installation rates.
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 8-watt BR30 Light Bulb Retrofit
AM Conservation 27Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Kitchen Faucet Aerators per Restaurant kit:2
Number of Restaurant participants:218
Deemed Savings Restaurant Kitchen Faucet Aerator 1: 161.49 kWh1
Deemed Savings Restaurant Kitchen Faucet Aerator 2: 130.96 kWh1
Kitchen Faucet Aerators per Office kit:1
Number of Office participants: 635
Deemed Savings Office Kitchen Faucet Aerator:22.77 kWh1
Kitchen Faucet Aerator per Retail kit (none): -
Number of Retail participants (not applicable): -
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (baseline x .83 throttling factor):2.08 gpm
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (retrofit x .95 throttling factor): 1.43 gpm
Percent reduced:31%
Estimated annual water usage per fixture Restaurant: 9,581 gallons
Estimated annual water usage per fixture Office: 2,500 gallons
Projected Electricity Savings:
10 years3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:78,213 kWh4
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:782,131 kWh5
Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,805,846 gallons6
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:18,058,460 gallons6
1 Provided by Idaho Power. Savings calculated based on the methodology in the Illinois TRM for Commercial Measures. Gallons vary by building type. Adjusted for
estimated electric water heat saturation and installation rates.
2 From Illinois TRM for Commercial Measures. 2019 v 7 Final, Section 4.3.2. Low Flow Faucet Aerators
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Kitchen Faucet Aerator kWh formula (Number of participants x Deemed savings x Kitchen Faucet Aerators per kit type).
5 Kitchen Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
6 Kitchen Faucet Aerator gallons formula (Annual usage per fixture x Number of Fixtures x Participants x Percent Reduction).
7 All water savings estimates are based on 100% installation rate.
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202128Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Bathroom Faucet Aerators per Restaurant kit:

2

Number of Restaurant participants: 218
Deemed Savings Restaurant Bathroom Faucet Aerator 1:132.24 kWh1
Deemed Savings Restaurant Bathroom Faucet Aerator 2:111.66 kWh1
Bathroom Faucet Aerators per Office kit: 2
Number of Office participants: 635
Deemed Savings Office Bathroom Faucet Aerator 1:19.91 kWh1
Deemed Savings Office Bathroom Faucet Aerator 2:12.53 kWh1
Bathroom Faucet Aerator per Retail kit: 1
Number of Retail participants: 53
Deemed Savings Retail Bathroom Faucet Aerator:28.18 kWh1
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (baseline x .83 throttling factor):2.08 gpm2
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (retrofit x .95 throttling factor): 1.43 gpm2
Estimated annual water savings per fixture Restaurant: 3,001 gallons2
Estimated annual water savings per fixture Office: 783 gallons2
Estimated annual water savings per fixture Retail: 1,143 gallons
Measure life: 10 years3
Projected Electricity Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:75,263 kWh4
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:752,631 kWh5
Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 2,363,734 gallons6
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of: 23,637,339 gallons6
1 Provided by Idaho Power. Savings calculated based on the methodology in the Illinois TRM for Commercial Measures. Gallons vary by building type. Adjusted for
estimated electric water heat saturation and installation rates.
2 From Illinois TRM for Commercial Measures. 2019 v 7 Final, Section 4.3.2. Low Flow Faucet Aerators
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 Deemed Savings x Bathroom Faucet Aerators per kit type).
5 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
6 Bathroom Faucet Aerator gallons formula (Annual usage per fixture x Number of Fixtures x Participants x Percent Reduction).
5 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
6 Bathroom Faucet Aerator gallons formula (Annual usage per fixture x Number of Fixtures x Participants x Percent Reduction).
AM Conservation 29Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Idaho Cities & Towns Served Oregon Cities & Towns Served
ABERDEEN INKOM
AMERICAN FALLS JEROME
BELLEVUE KETCHUM
BLACKFOOT KIMBERLY
BOISE KING HILL
BRUNEAU KUNA
BUHL MARSING
CALDWELL MCCALL
CAMBRIDGE MELBA
CAREY MERIDAN
CARMEN MIDDLETON
CASCADE MIDVALE
CASTLEFORD MOUNTAIN HOME
CHUBBUCK MURPHY
COUNCIL NAMPA
DIETRICH NEW MEADOWS
DONNELLY NEW PLYMOUTH
EAGLE NOTUS
EDEN OAKLEY
EMMETT PARMA
FILER PAYETTE
FORT HALL POCATELLO
FRUITLAND POLLOCK
GARDEN CITY RICHFIELD
GARDEN VALLEY RIGGINS
GLENNS FERRY SALMON
GOODING SHOSHONE
GRAND VIEW STAR
GREENLEAF SWEET
HAGERMAN TWIN FALLS
HAILEY WEISER
HAMMETT WENDELL
HANSEN WILDER
HAZELTON
HOMEDALE
HORSESHOE BEND
IDAHO CITY
INDIAN VALLEY
ADRIAN ONTARIO
HALFWAY OXBOW
JORDAN VALLEY RICHLAND
JUNTURA UNITY
NYSSA VALE
Idaho Power Commercial Energy-saving Kit Program Summary Report 202130Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Idaho Power Regions Served
REGIONS RESTAURANT OFFICE RETAIL
IDAHO
CANYON 27 95 8
CAPITAL 103 251 17
EASTERN 16 81 12
SOUTHERN 37 126 8
WESTERN 23 58 6
OREGON
CANYON 3
WESTERN 12 21 2
TOTAL 218 635 53
TOTAL ALL 906
©2022 AM Conservation (AMC)
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report2
“They loved sharing about their
timers, I had them time their
showers before handing out
anything. They were shocked!”
Lyna Butler, Teacher
Mill Creek Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“Students loved learning how small
changes can make a big impact on
energy consumption.”
Stephani Little, Teacher
Mill Creek Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report8Program Overview
“The students loved the activities
completed in class and implementing
the items in the kit. They are still
talking about it.”
Michelle Montoya, Teacher
Hillsdale Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report10Program Materials
“My kid came home excited to see
how the light bulbs looked different
and wanted to time her showers. She
wanted to check the temperature in
the fridge. I enjoyed seeing her excited
to make a difference.”
Parent
Wilson Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
“Working together with my child,
learning about saving energy and
why it is important.”
Parent
Filer Intermediate School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report16Program Team
Chase Griswold
Program Manager, CAPM
Libby Wilson
Director of Program Services
AM Conservation Group, Inc. 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 EnergyWise 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 EnergyWise 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 EnergyWise Program is a reflection of true teamwork. On behalf of the entire
implementation team at AMCG, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to design and
implement the Idaho Power EnergyWise Program. It has been a pleasure working with you, we look
forward to many more years of program success.
Sincerely,
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report18Program Impact
“They liked being able to take their
learning home with their kits and
teach their families.”
Aubrey Crisp, Teacher
Central Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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 110 participating teachers in the Canyon region, 62 (56%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,933 participating children in the Canyon region, 1,341 (46%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 51%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 33%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 59%5149
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
51% Yes
49% No 3367
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
33% Yes
67% No 5941
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
59% Yes
41% No
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 41 participating teachers in the Eastern region, 22 (54%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,157 participating children in the Eastern region, 560 (48%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 52%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 34%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 52% 5248
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
52% Yes
48% No 3466
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
34% Yes
66% No 5248
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
52% Yes
48% No
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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 85 participating teachers in the Southern region, 27 (32%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,273 participating children in the Southern region, 513 (23%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 53%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 35%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 56%5347
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
53% Yes
47% No 3565
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
35% Yes
65% No 5644
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
56% Yes
44% No
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 74 participating teachers in the Western region, 29 (39%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,660 participating children in the Western region, 544 (33%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 51%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 32%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 48%5149
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
51% Yes
49% No 3268
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
32% Yes
68% No 4852
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
48% Yes
52% No
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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 5.8 questions correctly prior to being involved in the program and then improved to answer
7.8 questions correctly following participation. Of the 12,446 student households participating, 3,851
returned survey responses.
Scores improved from 58% to 78%.
Pre-Program Score 58%
Post-Program Score 78%
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 62%86%
Mantle 8%3%
Inner Core 9%3%
Outer Core 21%7%
2 Non-Potable water is safe to drink.
True 23%11%
False 77%89%
3 Which of these is not a renewable resource?
Wind 18%6%
Plants 6%3%
Gold 59%82%
Animals 17%8%
4 Saving water saves energy.
True 81%94%
False 19%6%
25Program Impact
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
Pre Post
5 Which are fossil fuels?
Coal 19%10%
Oil 13%6%
Natural Gas 15%6%
All of the above 53%78%
6 Which type of energy is created in the process of Photosynthesis?
Nuclear Energy 17%11%
Thermal Energy 28%22%
Chemical Energy 31%57%
Electric Energy 25%10%
7 Which Kit item will save the most natural resources?
Compact Fluorescent Lamp 29%28%
High-Efficiency Showerhead 31%56%
FilterTone® Alarm 22%9%
LED Night Light 18%8%
8 Which major appliance uses the most energy?
Dishwasher 23%16%
Refrigerator 60%67%
Dryer 18%17%
9 An LED (light emitting diode) light bulb uses more energy than an incandescent bulb.
True 38%16%
False 62%84%
10 On-peak time is the best time to play video games.
True 33%14%
False 67%86%
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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, 12,446 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 11,993 student households participating, 3,851 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:12,446
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:15,959,073 159,590,730 gallons
Product Life: 10 years 1,107,017 11,070,166 kWh
49,500 495,003 therms
Projected reduction from first 9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit:295,421 3,545,052 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from second 9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit:232,221 2,786,653 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from third 9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit:185,533 2,226,394 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from LED Night Light retrofit:267,362 2,673,620 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from FilterTone® installation:79,030 790,297 kWh
Product Life: 10 years 7,323 73,226 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS:15,959,073 159,590,730 gallons
2,166,583 23,092,183 kWh
56,823 568,229 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 1,282 12,823 gallons
174 1,855 kWh
5 46 therms
**Per Idaho Power’s request, the associated savings for the shower timer have not been included in savings totals
**Lifetime LED savings based on assumption that inefficient bulb would stay in place for 12 years.
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 EnergyWise Program.
Of the 453 participating teachers, 129 returned teacher program evaluation surveys.
Teacher Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D)
98% of participating teachers indicated they would enroll in the program again given the opportunity.
99% of participating teachers indicated they would recommend the program to their colleagues.
What did students like best about the program? Explain.
“They loved sharing about their timers, I had them time their showers before handing out anything. They were shocked!”
Lyna Butler, Mill Creek Elementary School
“Students loved learning how small changes can make a big impact on energy consumption.”
Stephani Little, Mill Creek Elementary School
“The students loved the activities completed in class and implementing the items in the kit. They are still talking about it.”
Michelle Montoya, Hillsdale Elementary School
“Students loved the opportunity to learn how power is made and where it comes from. They also liked the free kits.”
Rose Marie Warrell, Oakley Elementary School
“They liked being able to take their learning home with their kits and teach their families.”
Aubrey Crisp, Central Elementary School
“Students really connected with the materials and lessons.”
Angela Zweifel, Hunter Elementary School
“The students loved the LED Bulbs and showerhead. They were suprised how much water they used and wasted.”
Jillian Cole, Eagle Hills Elementary School
“They loved the kit! They enjoyed learning about peak time and how they could boss their family around to save water and
energy.”
Katie Ward, Purple Sage Elementary School
“They loved the kits and the readings. They were amazed that the refrigerator uses the most energy. We also loved the
classroom activities.”
Kim Birkinbine, Silver Trail Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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.
“I have been teaching this program for 11 years now. I love the materials have been adjusted over the years to
make the explanation clear and easy for students to understand. Great program. I enjoy it.”
Katie Strawser, Melba Elementary
“The students enjoy the open discussion format. The students were engaged and continually used vocabulary
words for their reading.”
Marie Rockwood, Melba Elementary
“I enjoyed how easily the program is laid out and the engaging science experiments.”
Stephanie Gunstream, Melba Elementary
“Making the kids aware of all reason to conserve energy.”
Alicia Cody, Stoddard Elementary School
“I though the whole program was excellent. I used it to stand out my energy and electricity unit.”
Craig Ockermen, Stoddard Elementary School
“I like that it fits right in our standards. This is just something extra to do. This is a great resource for these
standards.”
Maggie Stump, Summit Elementary School
“It’s simple to follow teacher lessons and activities. The generous supplies for the students to help be good
stewards of the Earth.”
Anissa Bramlet, Pioneer School Of The Arts
“The whole program was very valuable. Power outage had just cost 21 lives in Texas so added to the importance
and impact to students.”
Cassie Young, Vale Elementary School
“Its a good student workbook with great ideas!”
Karen Klus, Henry L Slater Elementary School
“I liked the activities and relation to the common core standards.”
Jill McBride, Vale Elementary School
“The kits were fun. The organization of the book was well done.”
Mary Black, Haines Elementary School
“I liked that it provided information to the kids that they could relate to and reflect on such as water usage
(shower) and electricity (video games)”
Allisyn Ferdig, South Baker Intermediate School
29Program Impact
Teacher Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D)
What would you change about the program? Explain.
“Possibly make a grade specific program? Really, nothing, it is a great program!”
Cassie Royse, Filer Intermediate School
“Since more schools are implementing ‘Distance Learning’ having access to digital versions of the student workbooks
would be very helpful. Maybe add a pdf version to the thumb drive?”
Katie Strawser, Melba Elementary
“I have some homeless students, this makes some of the activities hard to do for them.”
Kelli Clark, Filer Intermediate School
“We just need more time to teach it.”
Alicia Cody, Stoddard Elementary School
“Students and parents are either going to do it or not. The same students and parents that are hard to motivate to do
things were the same ones for this project.”
Craig Ockermen, Stoddard Elementary School
“It would be very helpful to have power point & videos for each chapter to engage. Students more through visual
representation.”
Stacy Mount, Westside Elementary School
“I think the program works well. Don’t change a thing.”
John Anderson, Lewis and Clark Elementary
“The vocabulary was hard for students to understand. More explanation to describe main words.”
Kelly Leguineche, Richfield School
“Can’t think of anything!”
Leslie Wheeler, Filer Intermediate School
“Nothing! It’s great.”
Alison Parrott, Fruitland Middle School
“More puzzles activities after lessons. They LOVE those!”
Stacey Lakey, Summit Elementary School
“Nothing. I love this program!”
Meko Myers, Valley View Elementary School
“The home activities, a lot of parents won’t help so maybe making some they can do themselves.”
Lacie Christensen, Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report30Program 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 EnergyWise Program. Of the 11,993 participating families, 57 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.
100% of participating parents indicated they would like to see this program continued in local schools.
As a parent, which aspect of the program did you like best?
“I really appreciated you showing my son how he can keep conserving energy. The hands-on aspect was great!”
Longfellow Elementary School
“I like that the children are aware of things they can help with to save money.”
Filer Intermediate School
“My kid came home excited to see how the light bulbs looked different and wanted to time her showers. She
wanted to check the temperature in the fridge. I enjoyed seeing her excited to make a difference.”
Wilson Elementary School
“Working together with my child and learning about saving energy and why it is important.”
Filer Intermediate School
“It was easy to do with the kids, we had everything we needed, and the results were cool to see.”
Eagle Hills Elementary School
“The easy way that the uses of renewable and non-renewable resources are explained.”
Hunter Elementary School
“That she is more aware of how much energy she is wasting in our home.”
Hunter Elementary School
“That it teaches people to not be wasteful and save our planet.”
Riverside Elementary School
31Program 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?
“The kit was great and easy to use with my students. It was a very knowledgeable program.”
Willow Creek Elementary School
“We appreciate kids learning at an age before habit of wastefulness takes hold. This should teach good habits
which will help our planet.”
Riverside Elementary School
“I think they did a great job teaching the kids about power and how to use it. I hope you continue this program; it
really works.”
Rock Creek Elementary
“Thank you! This was practical, fun, and great life lessons!”
Eagle Hills Elementary School
“Thank you, Idaho Power!”
Garden Valley Elementary
“Good idea and it makes us think of conservation. Thank you.”
Groveland Elementary
“Before we put the alarm my grandma was happy because the furnace is quiet, and she likes to watch the news.
The whole family loves it. Now we can know when the filter need change.”
Harrison Elementary School
“Great job!!”
Homedale Elementary
“Great program, love it!”
Ronald Reagan Elementary School
“You are doing great. Thank you.”
St Edwards Catholic School
“Glad my child was interested; hope we can save!”
White Pine Elementary School
“Its great. Kids need to know about saving energy.”
Filer Intermediate School
“Thank you for teaching kids about conserving
energy.” , Lewis and Clark Elementary
©2021 AM Conservation Group, Inc.
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report42Appendices
“My students loved the kits but they
really liked being able to educate
their parents.”
Sharon Shaw, Teacher
Amity Elementary School
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report44Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit
Showerhead Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average household size: 5.18 people1
Average number of full bathrooms per home:2.05 full bathrooms per home1
% of water heated by gas:47.21%1
% of water heated by electricity:52.79%1
Installation / participation rate of:32.76%1
Average Showerhead has a flow rate of:2.07 gallons per minute1
Retrofit Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.26 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 12,446 1
Shower duration:7.80 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:15,959,073 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:159,590,730 gallons5
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,107,017 kWh2,6
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:11,070,166 kWh2,7
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:49,500 therms2,8
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:495,003 therms2,9
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 (2016). Water Research Foundation® Residential End Uses of Water Version 2, Executive Report.
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
45Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation
FilterTone® Installation Inputs and Assumptions:
Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner:2,196 kWh1
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace:442 ccfs1
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace:458 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:23.27%4
Number of participants:12,446 4
Discount Rate (electricity):29%9
Discount Rate (natural gas):40%10
% of participants with Ducted Electric Space Heating 28%11
Projected Electricity Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:79,030 kWh5
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:790,297 kWh6
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:7,323 therms7
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:73,226 therms8
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2015, Annual Household site end-use consumption by fuekl in the West.
2 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the ‘Filtertone’ F lter 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 furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas) x Installation rate x Number of participants
8 Annual energy (natural gas) use by furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas) x Installation rate x Number of participants x Product life
9 Data reported by program participants. (71% of program participants reported having central air conditionin)
10 Data reported by program participants. (40% of program participants reported having natural gas as a main source of heating)
** 1 ccf to 1.037 therm conversion (U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated June 1, 2021)
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report46Appendix 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:52.89 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:52.73%3
Number of participants: 12,446 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:295,421 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:3,545,052 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
**Lifetime LED savings based on assumption that inefficient bulb would stay in place for 12 years.
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:52.03 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:42.27%3
Number of participants: 12,446 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:232,221 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,786,653 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
**Lifetime LED savings based on assumption that inefficient bulb would stay in place for 12 years.
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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:51.41 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:34.27%3
Number of participants: 12,446 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:185,533 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,226,394 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
**Lifetime LED savings based on assumption that inefficient bulb would stay in place for 12 years.
49Appendix 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:75.45%3
Number of participants:12,446 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:267,362 kWh4
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,673,620 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
51Appendix 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 10%11%9%11%8%14%
2 68%72%68%67%69%64%
3 13%10%14%14%14%12%
4 5%4%5%4%6%5%
5+4%3%4%3%3%5%
6 Does your home have a programmable outdoor sprinkler system?
Yes 64%77%73%45%55%43%
No 36%23%27%55%45%57%
7 Does your home have a programmable thermostat?
Yes 76%83%80%62%75%69%
No 24%17%20%38%25%31%
8 What is the main source of heating in your home?
Natural Gas 40%51%47%34%28%19%
Electric Heater 44%39%38%48%56%52%
Propane 5%3%4%6%6%7%
Heating Oil 1%1%1%1%1%1%
Wood 5%3%4%4%6%13%
Other 5%4%5%7%2%8%
9 What type of air conditioning unit do you have?
Central Air Conditioner 71%81%79%50%65%61%
Evaporative Cooler 6%5%7%7%6%6%
Room Unit 13%8%8%24%16%20%
Don’t Have One 10%6%6%19%12%14%
10 Does your home have a Dishwasher?
Yes 84%91%90%71%75%77%
No 16%9%10%29%25%23%
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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
11 How many half-bathrooms are in your home?
0 61%50%55%74%69%75%
1 32%41%39%20%22%20%
2 5%6%4%4%6%5%
3 1%1%2%1%2%1%
4+1%1%1%0%1%0%
12 How many full bathrooms are in your home?
1 22%15%16%34%26%33%
2 56%55%64%44%56%52%
3 17%22%16%19%16%12%
4 3%6%3%2%2%2%
5+1%2%1%0%0%0%
13 How many toilets are in your home?
1 16%10%10%28%20%26%
2 43%32%44%45%53%51%
3 31%41%38%22%20%18%
4 7%12%6%4%5%3%
5+3%5%2%1%2%2%
14 How is your water heated?
Natural Gas 47%62%51%43%34%30%
Electricity 53%38%49%57%66%70%
Idaho Power EnergyWise Program Summary Report54Appendix 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 13%12%14%12%14%11%
60-watt 37%41%37%31%36%36%
75-watt 17%14%20%16%17%14%
100-watt 10%13%10%8%6%10%
Other 23%19%19%32%28%29%
7 Did your family install the second 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 42%45%42%42%42%39%
No 58%55%58%58%58%61%
8 If you answered “yes” to question 7, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 13%11%14%13%13%13%
60-watt 36%41%37%31%31%35%
75-watt 18%19%19%16%18%15%
100-watt 9%9%10%8%8%6%
Other 25%21%20%32%30%30%
9 Did your family install the third 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 34%37%35%34%32%32%
No 66%63%65%66%68%68%
10 If you answered “yes” to question 9, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 13%13%16%11%14%10%
60-watt 33%39%32%28%31%35%
75-watt 17%14%22%14%17%15%
100-watt 10%11%10%12%7%5%
Other 26%23%21%36%30%34%
11 Did your family install the FilterTone® Alarm?
Yes 23%26%24%22%25%15%
No 77%74%76%78%75%85%
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
12 How much did your family turn down the thermostat in winter for heating?
1 - 2 Degrees 18%25%18%12%19%14%
3 - 4 Degrees 19%19%20%16%21%18%
5+ Degrees 13%10%13%12%14%15%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 50%46%49%59%47%54%
13 How much did your family turn up the thermostat in summer for cooling?
1 - 2 Degrees 18%22%17%15%17%16%
3 - 4 Degrees 19%21%20%12%19%15%
5+ Degrees 14%13%13%9%16%20%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 50%44%49%63%49%48%
14 Did you install the LED Night Light?
Yes 75%74%77%74%75%76%
No 25%26%23%26%25%24%
15 Did your family lower your water heater settings?
Yes 21%26%22%18%22%15%
No 79%74%78%82%78%85%
16 Did your family raise the temperature on your refrigerator?
Yes 18%23%18%14%16%13%
No 82%77%82%86%84%87%
17 Did you complete the optional online energy use activity?
All of it 8%10%6%7%8%7%
Some of it 20%23%19%17%26%15%
None 72%67%75%76%66%78%
18 Did you work with your family on this Program?
Yes 57%62%59%51%59%48%
No 43%38%41%49%41%52%
Idaho Power EnergyWise 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
19 Did your family change the way they use water?
Yes 51%56%51%48%49%46%
No 49%44%49%52%51%54%
20 Did your family change the way they use energy?
Yes 57%62%59%52%56%48%
No 43%38%41%48%44%52%
21 How would you rate the Idaho Power EnergyWise® Program?
Great 45%49%45%48%42%41%
Pretty Good 40%39%40%39%44%41%
Okay 11%9%12%11%11%14%
Not So Good 3%3%3%2%3%4%
©2021 AM Conservation Group, Inc.