20230315 2022 DSM Supplement 2.pdf

MARCH 15 2023
SUPPLEMENT 2: E V A L U A T I O N
2022ANNUAL REPORTANNUAL REPORT
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT
Printed on recycled paper
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 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.................................................................................................. 35
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................... 39
Research/Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 201
Evaluations .................................................................................................................................. 249
Other Reports ............................................................................................................................. 447

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 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 Home Energy Report (impact, ADM Associates), Commercial Energy-Savings
Kits (impact and process, ADM Associates), C&I New Construction (impact and process, Tetra
Tech), and C&I Retrofits (impact and process, Tetra Tech) programs.
Idaho Power also contracted with Applied Energy Group to conduct an Energy Efficiency
Potential Study and a Demand Response Potential Study for Idaho Power’s service area. Due to
the size of these reports, they are not included in this Supplement 2, but can be accessed by a
link found in the Other Reports section.
AM Conservation Group conducted a program summary analysis of Student Energy Efficiency
Kits and Commercial Energy Savings Kits programs. Harris Utilities conducted a summary
analysis for the Home Energy Report Program. The company also conducted internal analyses
for the A/C Cool Credit, Flex Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs.
Throughout 2022, 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
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys listed above are included
in this Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 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
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 2022 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 2022 Annual Report Page 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES
The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on February 9, May 4, August 11,
and November 17, 2022.

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
February 09, 2022
Present:
Anna Kim – Public Utilities Commission of Oregon
Alexa Sakolsky-Basquill – Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Ben Otto – Idaho Conservation League
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Don Strickler – Simplot
Donn English – Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Evie Scrivner – Community Action Partnership
Kevin Keyt – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Sid Erwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association
Taylor Thomas – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Tina Jayaweera – Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Wil Gehl – City of Boise
Not Present:
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Kacia Brockman – Public Utilities Commission of Oregon
Marissa Warren – Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Nick Saven – Public Utilities Commission of Oregon

Guest and Presenters*:
Andee Morton – Idaho Power
Andrea Simmonsen – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer* – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* - Idaho Power
Chad Severson – Idaho Power
Callie Freeman – Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* - Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli – Idaho Power
Chris Pollow – Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz- Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby – Idaho Power
Kathy Yi – Idaho Power
Krista West – Idaho Power
Melissa Thom – Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Quentin Nesbitt* – Idaho Power
Rito Reynoso – Metro Community Services
Rosemary Curtin – Facilitator
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Sheree Wilhite – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Michelle Toney (Idaho Power) and Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin Virtual WEBEX Meeting Convened at 9:32 a.m. – Rosemary Curtin
Rosemary opened the meeting. New EEAG member introduction: Evie Scrivner, CEO Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) Quentin Nesbitt went over the agenda for today’s meeting. There were no questions or comments on the
November meeting notes. 9:39 a.m. Announcements
Connie provided regulatory updates. She highlighted the positive order received in the 2020 DSM prudence case and the Commission’s comments specifically acknowledging EEAG’s ongoing
participation.
Connie also provided a Demand Response (DR) filing update. The Oregon PUC approved the
modifications, and the Company expects an Idaho PUC decision in the coming weeks.
There were no questions or comments.
9:45 a.m.-2021 Financials & Savings – Quentin
Quentin presented preliminary year to date expenses on the Rider and Preliminary savings for all programs. The preliminary savings are down due to COVID. All DR programs are impacted by supply chain and labor issues making participation difficult. Equipment is hard to find/ship and with the new
construction in Idaho, contractors are being pushed towards new construction instead of retrofitting old equipment. Quentin also provided an update on the evaluation efforts.
One member asked about DR program modifications and mentioned that they thought the Flex Peak program was the lowest cost per MW of savings of the three DR programs. Quentin answered that it has the highest incentive but is lower overall cost per kW because the program has the least administrative cost as there are no devices in the field. Therefore, there is not a need for maintenance or monitoring,
unlike the Irrigation and A/C Cool Credit program where there are direct load control devices on customer equipment that need to be installed and maintained.
Another member asked about the process for evaluations when a program changes. Quentin responded that the company tries to do a process evaluation if there are significant changes on a program the next year and Idaho Power strives to do impact and process evaluations approximately every 3-5 years. For the DR programs the company does internal impact evaluations every year using the same methods as
prior third-party evaluations, and in some cases the same calculation tools our evaluators created for their evaluation of the DR program. 9:57 a.m.-Residential Programs – Billie McWinn
Billie presented the annual savings by program. She compared the savings and participation from 2020 to 2021 and stated that the reduction in year-over-year savings was mostly due to lighting and that COVID had very little impact on overall residential portfolio savings. Billie provided an answer to an EEAG member’s question from the November meeting about how the company handles code changes in relation to the Residential New Construction program. She shared that residential code updates went into effect in 2021. Program parameters and savings didn't change immediately to allow for homes that were already in the program pipeline. Program changes were implemented for projects rated after August of 2021, and builders were given ample notice. One member mentioned it would be good to see when this program is next evaluated and what builders did differently
under the new code versus the old. Quentin reindicated an impact evaluation for the residential new construction program is planned for 2023. A member said builders don't see the savings, but it would be good to share that with the buyer. Billie responded that builders now receive a certificate for their participation in the program and the home gets a sticker showing the home was built more efficiently than code. One member mentioned that many
homes are being built, and a bill is being proposed to set energy conservation codes back to 2018 levels. Still, there is not enough demand from consumers for energy efficient homes. The member questioned what the company can do to educate the buyer to demand a more efficient home.
Billie provided a Multifamily Savings Program update and reminded EEAG that the company would be
holding virtual meetings to discuss cost-effectiveness options going forward, and that EEAG members were invited to attend. Billie provided a lighting update, highlighting the new buydown program that was launched in late December 2021. One member asked if the program was reaching corner stores like dollar stores, as low-income customers are being pushed to dollar stores where incandescent bulbs are
sold. Billie responded that grocery and corner stores would be eligible for bulbs and fixtures.
Billie provided an update that in 2022 Welcome Kits will consist of four LED bulbs at 11 lumen/watt, and two LED night light fixtures.
Billie presented a proposed plan to end the Energy House Calls (EHC) program and move the cost-effective measure – duct sealing – into the Heating and Cooling Efficiency (HCE) program. Though
manufactured homes aren't eligible in HCE currently, the company plans to open the eligibility up to manufactured homes in order to transition the duct sealing measure from EHC to HCE mid-year 2022. One member questioned if there were potential savings for single and multi-family. Billie responded that
the duct sealing measure is available for other home types through HCE. One member added that allowing the duct sealing measure in the HCE program was good but concerned that low-income
customers have a more challenging time coming up with the out-of-pocket costs to participate. Billie gave an overview of the Idaho WAQC program carry-over balance. She shared the company had explored the mitigation options that were brought up at the last meeting and highlighted the company’s
plan to focus on re-weatherizing homes that were less than 14 years old, in order to replace old HVAC systems with heat pumps. There was additional discussion about the 85/15 split, ideas to create a
pipeline for HP installers, and questions about the need to put an end date of 2025 on the proposal.
11:14 a.m. Break 11:20 a.m.-Meeting Reconvened – C&I&I Programs – Chellie Jensen
Chellie presented the top ten highlights for the 2021 Year in Review, including program updates, savings,
milestones, and staff changes. Chellie is excited to have Jeff, Andee, and Curtis join the Commercial, Industrial and Irrigation team. Chellie reviewed the total program savings for multiple years with a
reminder of how some programs can have large swings, depending on the duration of the construction schedules and complexity of the project. The programs are on par with years prior to 2019. In 2019,
retrofits and custom projects both had a big year. Looking at 2020, custom had an all-time highest savings due to a few large mega projects.
Chellie went through individual program performance for New Construction, Retrofits, and Custom and highlighted historical savings and participation for each. Chellie provided an update regarding the Small
Business Direct Install (SBDI) which had 591 project installs from the programs start.
Chellie explained that Simplot invited the company to participate in an Energy and Sustainability Scan to support them in reaching their sustainability and energy efficiency goals. The site visit consisted of talking with personnel about equipment, operations, and improvement ideas. The company shared incentives, and future cohort participation then summarized energy-saving metrics and possible incentives to the customer.
One Member commented on the energy scan. They appreciate Idaho Power's support of the activity.
Chellie discussed the Commercial Energy Saving Kits, including the number of kits distributed in 2021. The new simplified kits are being finalized, and the company anticipates availability by mid-summer. Chellie provided an update on SEM Cohorts. She thanked the EEAG members for their feedback in the November meeting and mentioned that the company is in the process of designing an industrial wastewater cohort and is gauging customer interest.
Chellie went through the Irrigation Efficiency program performance and highlighted historical savings and participation. One member questioned the Irrigation Menu program. They said pressure regulators seem
to wear out faster than anything and mentioned the company might look at offering incentives for just the worn-out pressure regulators rather than the whole package. Quentin responded that the program had
been that way in the past but when the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) reviewed the savings, they determined that the research did not support a way to keep the savings broken apart and separated for
each item.
11:48 a.m. Lunch 1:02 p.m.-Meeting Reconvened – Marketing – Annie Meyer
Annie presented the Marketing Overview. She discussed the fall residential campaigns which ran on all
major channels. Annie then talked about the company's marketing tactics – Sweepstakes and newsletters, including promotions on social media, email, My Account, and the homepage.
My Account recently re-vamped, and the company anticipates a higher visitor count. Annie points out My Account is excellent for marketing because the audience is already engaging with the company online. Pop-ups are currently for Heating/Cooling.
Annie went over what is new in 2022. The company will start delving into podcast advertising as things become more digital. She discussed continuing paid segments with KTVB and the addition of seasonal bill inserts and emails with relevant tips. Looking for sponsorships with smaller colleges and other opportunities.
On the Commercial/Industrial Annie discussed some changes in the irrigation efficiency print ad (bold text) and menu form updates (easier to read).
The My Account pop-up ads will promote the Retrofits program. Working on case studies for the webpages as well as customer testimonials. There will be a Chambers of Commerce newsletter ad for Eastern region and Boise metro chamber mailing list.
One member asked about what sponsorships for schools might look like. Annie mentioned it would be similar to College of Southern Idaho where they have a banner in the gym advertising energy efficiency.

1:15 p.m.-Wrap-up/Open Discussion – All
No questions, just a comment about how the peak rewards program is coming through the Idaho Public
Utility Commission.
Good meeting, thanks. I think we have gotten into the routine of doing these virtual pretty well, so thanks, everyone.
Great meeting. One question regarding marketing with My account popups. The website has more options of 'read more' and 'no thanks.' Do we track the clicks? Annie answered that the company tracks the clicks on the webpage.
Glad to be a part of the meeting. Shoutout to the marketing team. I feel like there's good visibility out there. I feel like I see Idaho Power everywhere. Glad to be part of the backend.
Thank you for the meeting today. Good information. I am looking forward to seeing a transition from suspended work and getting through the waitlists for the residential programs.
Good meeting. Just a reminder that we all know EE is important, but in the big picture, we tend to hear a lot about solar or greenhouse gas. Whatever we save, we don't have to build new resources. The basis of everything is energy efficiency.
I couldn't agree more with what the member just said. I appreciate the presentations everyone put together.
1:45 p.m.-Meeting Adjourned

1
Internal Use Only
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) May 4, 2022
Present:
Anna Kim – Public Utilities Commission of
Oregon
Alexa Sakolsky-Basquill – Office of Energy &
Mineral Resources
Ben Otto – Idaho Conservation League
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Don Strickler – Simplot
Donn English – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kevin Keyt – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Nick Saven – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Sid Erwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tina Jayaweera – Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Wil Gehl – City of Boise
Not Present:
Evie Scrivner – Community Action Partnership
Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Marissa Warren – Office of Energy & Mineral Recourses
Guests and Presenters*:
Alexis Freeman – Idaho Power
Andee Morton – Idaho Power
Andrea Simmonsen – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* - Idaho Power
Chad Severson – Idaho Power
Cassie Koerner – Boise State
Chellie Jensen* - Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz- Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Eli Morris – Applied Energy Group
Fuong Nguyen – Applied Energy Group
Grace Wroblewski – Applied Energy Group
Heide Caswell – Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Jared Hansen* – Idaho Power
Jim Swier – Micron
Julie Rosendic – Idaho Power
Kathleen Araujo – Boise State
Kathy Yi* – Idaho Power
Kim Herb – Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Kimberly Bakalars* – Tetra Tech
Krista West – Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Dep of Commerce
Mark Bergum* – Tetra Tech
Melissa Thom* – Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Neil Grigsby* – AEG
Quentin Nesbitt* – Idaho Power
Ray Short – Idaho Power
Robert Ferguson – Verizon
Rosemary Curtin – Facilitator
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Stephanie Wicks – St. Lukes (SLHS)
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power

Note Takers:
Michelle Toney (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
2
Internal Use Only
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Virtual Webex Meeting Convened at 9:32 a.m.
Rosemary opened the meeting. There were no questions or comments on the February meeting notes.
9:35 a.m. Announcements
Quentin went over agenda, who will present, and presentations subject matter.
Quentin highlighted the company filed annual DSM report with IPUC and OPUC on March 15th. Also, since the last meeting, the company received approval from both IPUC and OPUC on changes to the Demand Response programs.
9:43 AM-2021 Financials & Savings – Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided preliminary first Quarter financials and savings (Jan-March). Advised the NEEA evaluation is part of the IPUC 2021 prudence order, and the company is working with Avista. Quentin went over the Evaluation Schedule for all program evaluations.
9:49 AM-Residential End Use Study – Kathy Yi
Kathy presented the End Use Study: a self-reported survey to better understand residential customers and their usage by profiling various characteristics. Kathy presented high-level results and talked about survey responses. She noted the study results are utilized for the energy efficiency potential study.
One member said, one problem with all surveys, there is a bias demographic (higher income) that is more inclined to respond than others. Does the company’s vendor do anything to mitigate that? Kathy responded that the company sent population and census data to vendor. The company has past survey results to see if trends are in
line with what we’ve seen in the past. The member said, it’s good you use census as a data point. Any differences between mail and email? Kathy responded there is no difference - no bias. Vendor keeping an eye on it. Survey is not opinion based, helps reduce bias a little.
One member asked, if the resistance heating is referencing electric resistant furnace or zonal? It was confirmed that it includes electric central furnace, baseboard, ceiling cables, wall heaters and radiant heat.
One member asked if we compared customers that use a heat pump for heat and those that had a heat pump for cooling. Is there a good correlation there? It was followed up that electric resistance heating is defined as electric resistance central furnace, baseboards, ceiling cables, wall heaters, and other electric zonal units.
A member is wondering if a central furnace is gas or electric? Kathy responded it can be broken to that detail. The member then asked if there’s a difference between stove or fireplace? Kathy explained that it depends if supplemental natural gas is used.
Another member said, I lived in a home for a long time with two pellet stoves. How prevalent is that? It’s not the same as climate zone or market. Where would it fall within these definitions? Kathy said because this is a self-reported survey, the fuel type is up to the person to choose. The member said it could potentially be listed as a
stove or fireplace. Kathy reminded everyone the survey questions referenced, “What Fuel” and “What System.”

3
Internal Use Only
10:27 AM-Residential Programs – Billie McWinn
Billie presented residential program specific updates, participation, and savings. She explained program impacts,
supply chain constraints, and increased costs. Billie shared that the Energy House Calls program is no longer cost-effective and the company has a transition plan (the program will end). Billie also discussed Multi-Family and reminded everyone that the cost-effectiveness has a bleak outlook, and that the company is looking at other ways to offer energy efficiency measures to the multi-family sector. Billie reviewed the WAQC budget carry over plan to file with the commission to adjust program rules. Billie presented BRIO updates. She explained the details of the two ductless heat pumps campaigns, and customer outreach. Billie then showed an example letter sent out to customers then provided an update on the potential Marketplace programs noting that the company and vendor are still in negotiations.
One member asked about the supply chain with regards to Welcome Kits. Billie commented that the cost of materials has gone up and the Program Specialist added that product has been held in port longer than expected.
One member encourages the company to engage with the RTF if there are new measures for the multi-family
program. It’s important to put in a request with the RTF for those measures.

10:53 AM-Break 5 mins
11:05 AM-Marketing – Melissa Thom
Melissa introduced Julie Rosandick Marketing Specialist who is replacing Tracey Burtch.
Melissa presented the residential spring marketing campaigns. She discussed the company is using all major
channels, new platforms, and target markets. Melissa presented the June Connections, showcasing an energy efficiency success story shared by a local Twin Falls couple. The annual energy efficiency guide goes out in June, and each of the demand response programs marketing materials have been updated. Melissa said the energy@work newsletter highlights the Irrigation Peak Rewards and Flex Peak programs. There were no questions.
11:10 PM-C&I&I Programs – Chellie Jensen
Chellie introduced new Program Specialists, Ray Short & Jonathan Guynes and presented an update on activities the company is doing to promote the DR programs. Chellie provided an update on enrollment for Flex Peak and for Irrigation Peak Rewards.
One member asked about repeat customers in the Flex Peak program. What are the changes and impact particulars? Chellie answered there are 134-136 participants. Some leave, some drop off. We did receive some
inquiries from new customers. We are about where we've been in the past few years, but we are trying to get a higher enrollment.
Another member commented that shifting the timing to later during the day and extending the season – going to
Sept 15th. The member is concerned about those unable to or won’t participate. Said the numbers are good for reenrollment but will have to see how it plays out this year. The member said that it looks like numbers are really close to where we've been, and this is encouraging. Chellie said we're excited to see the results as we get near
June 15th.
One member asked about when the enrollment ends. Chellie said we asked that enrollment goes through June 15th. We want resources in place. Ag Reps are calling those who haven’t got their enrollment papers in. What we're
seeing is normal for this time of the year.
4
Internal Use Only
Chellie presented the first Quarter program performance for Commercial, Industrial and Irrigation Programs. She compared each program to the total projects and savings since 2013 and discussed supply chain issues. She
discussed the company’s ideas and recommendations to address participation issues and asked for ideas from EEAG.
One member asked about the difference between SBDI and Retrofits. Chellie explained that SBDI is aimed at small businesses that use 24,999kWh or less per year. The contractor targets customers in this range, performs an assessment, then changes out the lights on site. Customers don’t have to go out and get bids, it is at no cost for the assessment and the installation for the target customer such as small mom & pops. It’s a win-win for them and they are not spending extra time to learn the “art of possible.” Retrofits are primarily marketed by trade allies. There’s a lighting tool used and customers or trade allies indicate the existing and the proposed fixtures and the project cost and the incentive is populated. The potential exists that some measures could get up to 100% of the project cost, and is based on savings and equipment. Very simple, but SBDI is mostly a lighting concierge service for the smallest of our customer base.
Chellie highlighted Micron’s Earth Day celebration and the history between Micron and the company. A Micron representative spoke about their appreciation for the company’s support and the great collaborative effort. The representative said Micron has been in the area for more than 40 years. They have a good budget to upgrade
equipment and doing lots of remodeling to old buildings to replace old systems. Micron does have supply chain issues. It takes 15 to 30 weeks to get larger equipment. They are putting in orders much earlier than normal, due to long lead times. The representative said Micron is participating with Flex Peak, but their overall loads are just
so big sometimes it doesn’t show.
Chellie also highlighted the City of Boise street lighting project that will be completed in September 2023. She discussed the benefits of LEDs, the MWh per year saved, safety, and the controls technology. A representative of the City of Boise is excited to partner with Idaho Power. Residents have been liking the changes. The City of Boise is looking forward to getting the project completed. They are looking into DR programs as well. They appreciate the company meeting them at City Hall to do the check presentation.

11:50 PM-Lunch Break
1:06 PM-Meeting Reconvened Rosemary and Quentin
Per Quentin’s request, Rosemary introduced those who joined after lunch and that IRPAC members were specifically invited to this portion of the meeting.
1:10 PM-T&D Benefits – Jared Hansen
Jared presented T&D Benefits starting with the deferral methodology explaining what makes up the energy
efficiency value. He gave a T&D deferral example showing energy efficiency measures can bring down anticipated high demand that is triggering upgrades before the peak. Jared discussed the old methodology through the IRP time frame. He demonstrated the life span of an energy efficiency measure and went over the company’s
approach, deferral value, and iterative process.
One member said while the NWPCC council methodology is slightly different, the numbers are close to what they got. The member asked if the company is discounting over 20 years. Jared said all project costs are adjusted to
current dollars and the savings occur for the deferral in the project start.
5
Internal Use Only
Another member questioned, depending on the savings in question, in a world with supply chain issues and inflation, would those factors persist here (do those factors impact this analysis). Jared replied that some of the forecast period is in the supply chain issue timeframe. But impacts are built into those near-term years. The member asked if a transformer cost $800,000 and there is a 2% annual inflation, is that put into any of the savings
at risk? Jared said we calibrated cost of capital and used an inflation rate that was a composite of a number of years. Not as drastic as what we're seeing right now because the analysis is a longer-term look. The member questioned if T&D values are represented together is it a composite of two different numbers, or can T&D be broken out, are they calculated the same? Jared answered that they are separate numbers. Three categories (called T&D deferral) are substation, transmission, and distribution deferral. Most savings from T&D are from the distribution side. Transmission is more difficult to defer. Not as many projects and harder to quantify.
One member asked if you look at energy efficiency forecasts, is it always a load reduction or shifting? Jared said that energy efficiency measures are load decreasing. With DR, we see more of a shift. We do separate out load reduction and energy efficiency reduction. The member said in instances you’re trying to defer that installation of substation. Is there a way to account the risk of future growth that otherwise would be a greenfield opportunity and increase installation cost? Jared answered that there are risks like the one you mentioned. We didn't attempt to quantify for those in this analysis. The member inquired about load shifting. Anticipating same approach if demand was shifted instead of reduction, how would you compensate a surprising alteration potential that creates another challenge for the network (would the company use a similar approach if looking at load shifting through
demand response)? Jared said it could because the company tends to give attention to local peak need (DR) versus targeted system need and there could be consequences. Not part of the scope of what we’re doing here.
Another member asked, are you proposing this in the 2023 IRP as current method? Jared replied that $6.73 is an
input to the potential study that will be presented after today. Energy efficiency forecast is a decrement in load we must meet. The member said it seems like a big change from the previous methodology. Is there a reason we're now doing this instead of before? Jared said one member pushed him toward this before and was right. At the time, it was just a methodology change we didn't implement until this year. We didn't know the impact of the change. All this feeds into the IRP. That is why an invite was sent to IRPAC as well, to determine the needs on the system. Yes, we would be proposing the T&D deferral value would affect the IRP. The member asked, will you also be presenting this change to IRPAC? Jared answered that he is not planning on presenting but welcomes feedback. The member will follow up.

1:33 PM-Energy Efficiency Potential Study Introduction – Quentin Nesbit
Quentin introduced the two topics the Applied Energy Group (AEG) will be presenting. He went over the timeline and the purpose of the energy efficiency potential study. There were no questions.

1:38 PM-Energy Efficiency Potential Study – AEG – Neil Grigsby, Eli Morris, & Fuong Nguyen
Neil introduced the Applied Energy Group (AEG) and the team presenting. He presented the study objectives and noted that numbers shown are draft numbers for potential savings, and that the commercial, irrigation, and industrial are close and that they are still working on residential.
Eli presented the AEG’s methodology, showing data collections and gave an overview of their modeling approach.
One member commented that for the 2021 power plan, they are moving away from calculating achievable potential as a max of 85% of economic potential. Are you using that assumption in this analysis? Fuong answered
6
Internal Use Only
that achievability is based upon measure level. We have incorporated the 2021 power plan updates. Some achievable rates may be larger for measures in which increased standards a present and would hope to get near
100% of the economic potential as achievable potential.
Another member asks, did you do any different analysis based on change in building code? Our code is lower than others around us. Eli replied, we didn’t model what the code would look like. We model the current building code. We don't speculate on what a new building code would look like. Councils’ achievability assumptions do include some information on this, but we don't forecast codes or understand what things would look like if there were potential new code changes. If a code is improved, it would reduce savings, but it is not included in this study.
2:02 PM-Demand Response (DR) – Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the introduction to the Demand Response Potential Study. He went over the timeline for the completion of the study and how will fit into IRP timeline. Quentin briefly described the company’s DR programs. He reviewed the history and discussed the modifications recently approved by both commissions.
2:11 PM-Demand Response Potential Study – AEG – Maggie Buffum
Maggie presented AEG’s approach to the DR potential study and mentioned they will be starting with the NWPCC DR assessment assumptions. She explained overall approach and noted the study will be specific to the
company’s service territory taking into account that the Idaho Power is summer peaking which is different than the rest of the NWPCC region. Therefore, it’s necessary to review and modify some of the council’s assumptions. She shared council assumptions on DR resource and costs.
One member commented that in the 2021 IRP, the company limited DR to 20 MW additions. Will that occur in the 2023 IRP? Quentin answered that we have not yet determined how the possible capacity additions will be modeled. We will see what the potential study shows and make some judgement calls on how to grow the programs or add potential programs. There will be some assumptions with ramp rates that could replace the '20 MW rule’ that we put in place in the 2021 IRP.
Another member commented about not seeing DVR on this. Was it included as part of the study? Eli answered that it wasn’t because it is not a demand side program. Maggie said they planned to look at only things on the customer side of the meter. Quentin added we have been testing and piloting DVR. The member added that there is value with DVR and recommends the company keep exploring opportunities.
One member asked if A/C load control and bring your own thermostat are two separate programs? Quentin answered it’s something we have contemplated in past. There are some issues with overlap and switches being
abandoned going to thermostats. This impacts overall cost effectiveness. I anticipate if we add thermostats, we will try to keep it under the A/C Cool Credit umbrella. We do believe there are substantial differences in how the programs run and the results you get between the two. AEG will be evaluating overlap, technical, and customer
issues. The member then asked what is your AMI situation for your customers? Quentin answered over 99% of customers have AMI hourly interval data. The member said it helps when you think about cost. Quentin replied that is correct.
One member had a comment geared towards Jared. One of the things we worked really hard on is to account for the interaction of energy efficiency and demand response in the total NWPCC plan. Have we thought about how to do this here? Smart thermostats are an energy efficiency measure but has demand response potential as well. Heat pump water heaters as well. Getting this integration was difficult and it was not necessarily done perfectly. How are we trying to think about this? Jerad said the brief answer is we need to continue thinking about this. Energy efficiency will reduce demand in the plan. Demand response will be able to act as it naturally would for the most part. It will be built into the IRP. The member said they will follow up later with Jared.
7
Internal Use Only
Another member has a question about irrigation. Seeing patterns of climate change and drought, how would this impact demand response? Will it impact irrigators when temperatures are high where they would be unwilling or
unable to reduce water use? Quentin said drought is something that irrigators certainly have delt with. It’s not that uncommon. If farmers don’t have much water, they will change crops and grow something different. That can impact our program especially later in the year. Quentin also noted that if irrigation load is down, the system load
will be down as well, and there will be less potential need for DR.
2:34 PM-Break 10 mins
2:41 PM-Customer Evaluations – Tetra Tech Kimberly Bakalars & Mark Bergum
Quentin introduced Kimberly and Mark.
Kimberly presented the evaluation of 2020 custom projects for commercial and industrial efficiency program. She discussed the difference between impact and process focus then provided some background information. Kimberly went over the methodology objectives along with a follow up from previous evaluations. She reviewed impact and process steps and said the company does a great job with communicating to customers and
documenting the program, resulting in good relationships. This also adds to the company’s high satisfaction ratings. She also noted that customers appreciate the company’s staff, and commented customers noted that incentive estimates were close to the actual final incentives.
Mark presented the impact results and recommendations stating the importance of maintaining long-term focus on cohort projects. He discussed sophisticated systems-based energy efficiency is delivered above the standard equipment improvements. He noted projects implemented with the support of the company’s programs may not
have occurred otherwise because customers would likely be unable to design the improvements, coordinate efforts of installation and operation and obtain engineering calculations of savings without the support from the program. Mark provided the recommendation that a consumption analysis approach for savings could be something the company look at. In his opinion the approach could provide energy savings from projects without complicated engineering reports to determine the impact of each project. There were no questions or comments.
3:15 PM-Wrap-up/Open Discussion
Rosemary asked each member if there were any questions or comments.
Very informative thank you.
No thanks. Rosemary great meeting I enjoyed everything. Amazing to see the progress over the years.
Good meeting. As far as Tech Tetra, I’ll echo everything said about IPC building relationships and being trusted. It is crucial. Our incentives are about what we expect them to be and fosters our future participation. Eco
industrial. One idea: we have goals for energy, water, and carbon reduction. Might it be worth figuring out metric tons co2 equivalent was also avoided with that energy savings.
Thanks very much no questions / comments.
I will echo the members thoughts on program. I think you should track the co2 equivalent. For us, it was 44,000 metric tons of co2 that was avoided in our number.
Look forward to seeing results from DR potential study and how it will impact 2023 IRP. Interested to see 2022
summer performance for demand response programs.
I really liked today’s meeting and the presentations. The guests and presenters did great. Thank you.
8
Internal Use Only
Rosemary reminded everyone that the next meeting is Thursday, August 11th at 9:30 A.M.
3:30 PM-Adjourn

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
August 11, 2022
Present:
Not Present:

Jim Hall – WaFd Bank
Marissa Warren – Office of Energy & Mineral Recourses

Guests and Presenters*:
Andrea Simmonsen – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer* – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* - Idaho Power
Chad Severson – Idaho Power
Chad Ihrig – Google Nest
Chellie Jensen* - Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz- Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Gavin Hamilton – Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby* – Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick – Idaho Power
Kathy Yi* – Idaho Power
Kevin Kitz – KitzWorks Llc
Melissa Thom – Idaho Power
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Ray Short – Idaho Power
Rosemary Curtin – Facilitator
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch* – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch* – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power

Alexa Bouvier – Office of Energy &
Mineral Resources
Aly Bean – Idaho Conservation League
Anna Kim – Public Utility Commission of
Oregon
Connie Aschenbrenner – Idaho Power
Diego Rivas – Northwest Energy Coalition
Don Strickler – Simplot
Donn English – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Evie Scrivner – Community Action Partnership
Jason Talford – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Nick Sayen –Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Quentin Nesbitt – Idaho Power
Sid Erwin – Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Taylor Thomas – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Tina Jayaweera – Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Wil Gehl – City of Boise
Note Takers:
Michelle Toney and Kathy Yi – Idaho Power
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin Virtual Webex Meeting Convened at 9:32 a.m.
Rosemary convened the meeting and led introductions.
9:37 AM-Announcements
Quentin reviewed the agenda. There were no questions or comments about the May 2022 meeting notes
or the August agenda.
9:40 AM-2022 Financials & Savings – Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented DSM savings and costs by sector and program from January through June 2022. He also provided an overview of the program evaluation schedule. In addition, Quentin mentioned the company has sent out an RFP for selecting contractors for the 2023 evaluations.
One member had a question about the “Other Evaluation” category specifically mentioning the DR programs and whether the company is doing Impact Evaluations. Quentin said DR evaluations are done every year and include the impact of the program and that the reports are included in Appendix 2 of the annual DSM report. The “Other Category” is to indicate it wasn’t done by a third party.
9:55 AM-Cost Effectiveness – Kathy Yi
Kathy presented the DSM program’s cost-effectiveness (by sector) with a deeper dive on some specific programs. She provided an update on the Heating & Cooling Efficiency (HCE), and a refresher on how lower savings for Ductless and Air Source Heat Pumps (HP) are impacting the programs cost-effectiveness. Kathy reviewed the new 2023 federal standard for Air Source HPs and impacts on the program, then went over the company’s next steps. She discussed the changes in lighting and the impacts to efficiency potential due to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 2019 final rule.
Discussion and Questions:
Small Business Direct Install (SBDI) program
One member asked about what makes SBDI more cost-effective from the Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective and specifically why the benefit is higher under that test. Kathy said the TRC includes an additional 10% conservation benefit as well as non-energy benefits. The member then asked if Idaho Power is expecting SBDI to be borderline cost-effective because of increased costs and whether we expect higher savings due to the larger population of small businesses in the treasure valley, mentioning that is seems the economies of scale would improve with larger populations. Kathy said it’s hard to predict, but that cost effectiveness is more affected by the type of lights being replaced more than the total
overall number.
Another member questioned if it’s possible to continue the SBDI program because small business is a class of customers that are harder to reach. Getting guaranteed savings with direct installs is a huge benefit. Quentin commented that this program was designed to roll across the service area before March 2023. All small business customers have had at least one chance to participate.
One member asked about the SBDI details including the top three costs that rose faster than expected and identify then breakdown a few problematic areas. Kathy said she doesn’t have the specific breakdown of costs. Quentin said that we contract with a third-party vendor therefore, we don't see the specific costs, but they are saying they're experiencing cost issues and will not be able to renew the contract at the current price.
Another member asked what the average cost of an SBDI install is. Kathy answered that she’s only
looked at the total numbers and hasn’t looked at the per-project numbers yet.
Residential Heating & Cooling Efficiency
One member said the RTF found HPs installation practices are very impactful on savings. Some are
installed in homes with gas heat, to supplement cooling, which results in low or negative savings. It seems the company requires the minimum HSPF standard for air source HPs for an incentive. Kathy said this is correct and electric heat is required and the incentive is based on the higher HSPF. The new standards change the baseline, so we claim less savings. Another member stated they see this as a factor in the C&I space as well.
A guest asked if the company would consider smart thermostats in conjunction with a hybrid heat pump with gas backup system. Billie proposed the Program Specialist and guest connect outside the EEAG forum for a detailed discussion about program strategies for HPs and smart thermostats.
Lighting
One member asked about the programs affected by the EISA, when the contract with the lighting vendor ends, and whether the types of bulbs can be updated mid-contract. Kathy said our current residential lighting by down ends this year and added that Chellie would present on some commercial program
impacts also.
There was a question about if the savings is higher with LED fixtures versus a screw-in LED. Kathy answered that the company does have fixtures in the programs, but it is an area that isn’t fully transformed yet. We could potentially offer incentives but if we don’t have a specific Buy-Down program, it could impact how we can offer an incentive. We may be able to offer incentives through the new Marketplace Program.
10:40 AM-Break 10 mins
10:50 AM-Residential Programs – Billie McWinn
Billie presented an overview of the programs in terms of savings and participation, noting she will be seeking feedback for the Lighting Buy-Down program. Billie then showed program updates on
Multifamily Savings, Welcome Kits, Lighting Buy-Down, Home Energy Reports (HER), AC Cool Credit
DR program (ACCC), and the Marketplace.
Discussion & Questions:
Welcome Kits
One member asked if the company could include thermostatic shower valves (TSV) in the Welcome Kits. Billie said the kits go to all customers and the savings from TSVs can only be claimed if the customer has an electric water heater. Denise added TSVs are expensive. Another question was if there is anything in the student kits that could be incorporated. Denise provided an overview of the kit’s contents and said the
savings are minimal, but we are exploring ideas with the vendor.
Another member asked if the energy efficiency tips can be added to the kits. Denise said the education
flip book includes that information, and the book is updated annually to reflect any program or other
changes.
One member had a question about the packaging being adjusted for kits in 2023. Denise responded that the box is going to change but that does not reduce the shipping costs. We are exploring options for other shippers at a lower cost.
Another member asked if the company tracks the participation in other energy savings programs from customers that receive Welcome Kits. Billie said we don’t have direct tracking in place. The member asked if there was a follow-up survey about possible changes in usage. Denise said new customers wouldn’t see that change because there is no comparison of historic bills.
Lighting Buy-Down
One member questioned if the Buy-Down Program is cost-effective. Billie said yes. The member pointed out a clean break at the end of 2022 may be more straightforward because while there are potential saving
opportunities into 2023, it could get messy in terms of evaluating the programs cost effectiveness.
Another member commented, retailers may try to exhaust their inventory of cheaper inefficient bulbs, it makes sense to try to counteract that and continue the program into 2023. Perhaps reducing the Buy-Down amount could potentially give the lower income customers a glide path to help with the higher cost without the buydown.
There was another question about other utilities or co-ops in Idaho and where they are targeting lighting incentives beyond 2022. Billie said our vendor does run other programs in the region and we engage with them.
Another member said that if the Buy-Down Program is cost-effective, they would prefer continuing it into
2023, because in rural areas, there are smaller businesses and high inflation over the past several months.
HER Program
One member said they received their HER report and asked if changes in weather are accounted for in the savings. Denise said comparisons are from the same area that experience the same weather.
Another member asked if the HER is an opt-out program, and whether there has been a decline in participation. Billie confirmed it is an opt-out program and affirmed that participation decreases over time is due to attrition. The member asked if there’s an attempt to backfill those participants. Billie said the treatment and control groups must start at the same point to be able to make a comparison. Denise added, at the start of the program, all residential customers with adequate meter history were included in the participant pool. The company continues to monitor customer eligibility, but currently, there’s not enough residential customers meeting the criteria to create a new treatment and control group.
AC Cool Credit DR program
One member asked if Idaho Power is considering a Bring-Your-Own Thermostat (BYOT) program. Billie said we are monitoring that. The member also asked if the company would stop using the switch if it added a BYOT program. Billie advised no, because the current switch option is a cost that is already invested. Billie also added that a BYOT program would require a considerable investment in the control
interface for our load-serving operations.
Another member asked about the cost per switch and the current Smart Thermostat incentive. The
company responded that the cost of the switch is $165, which is based on buying in volume, and the
Idaho Power incentive for a Smart Thermostat in the H&C Efficiency program is $75.
Marketplace
One member asked about how local smaller retailers participate in Marketplace. Mindi said the Marketplace tool can provide a list of the local stores that carry the product. However, retailers that want to list what their daily price for products are, would need to provide a file of all product model numbers
and prices daily.
11:35 AM-Marketing – Annie Meyer
Annie provided marketing updates for all sectors highlighting residential A/C Cool Credit, smart summer
contest, EE awareness campaigns, and commercial and industrial EE incentives.
One member suggested the Marketplace timing to be up and running prior to Black Friday/Cyber Monday/holiday season and mentioned Idaho Power could leverage those retailer/OEM promotions.
Melissa responded yes, that is our hope to get it going by then.

12:00 PM-Lunch Break 1 HR 1:00 PM-My Account – Tracey Burtch
Tracey’s presentation covered the My Account default view for homes and businesses, showing daily use with temperatures and how to use the features. She also demonstrated the ease of adding information to
the home profile and the information and tips My Account will provide in the savings center. Tracey then
showed how customers could sign up for alerts. There were no questions or comments.
1:12 PM-C&I&I Programs – Chellie Jensen
Chellie provided year-to-date savings and participation for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs. She also highlighted the 2022 DR participation compared to 2021 and showed the event days so far this season.
Discussion & Questions:
Irrigation Program
One member wanted to know what drove the program reduction in participation. Chellie said Ag Reps found many reasons for the change in participation, but we expect to know more post-season. The
member added, there was a higher loss of MW than sites. Chellie said we did lose large MW participants but gained a lot of smaller ones. Quentin added the reduction in participation was related to the impact of
the program changes.
Energy Efficiency Savings
One member asked if there is a good pipeline of projects for the programs. Chellie said we have a good pipeline for Custom Projects, not as good for Retrofits and pretty good for New Construction. For the New Construction program, it’s been difficult to get architects and engineers to engage. There is a
lumpiness in savings, but if you look at the second half of last year, it's the same rate of savings as the first half of this year. It doesn’t look like we’ll get to 2021 total savings level, but we could get a few large projects in 2022 that would change things.
Another member inquired if the 2022 numbers should be read as YTD or only Q2. Chellie said the numbers reflect the first half of the year (YTD).
Commercial Savings Kits
One member asked about the measure life on the LEDs. Kathy said this was the estimate of how long the previous life would last. She explained how the company settled on the savings claimed and added that a third-party is currently evaluating. The member inquired about the exit signs and aerators. Kathy said they
have different measure lives.
2:00 PM-Engaging With C&I Customers – Jeff Rigby
Jeff discussed the company’s engagement with large power customers through the company’s Key Account Energy Advisors (KAEA). He presented the number of Idaho Power KAEAs, their role, the type of support they provide, and how they help find opportunities for energy efficiency and to influence customer participation in the company’s energy efficiency programs. Jeff also gave examples of EE projects that KAEAs helped with.
Discussion & Questions:
One member asked if the company has Tribal Governments or Reservations in the service area and would those be considered Key Accounts. Jeff said we have one in the Pocatello area, but to be a Key Account, and have an assigned KAEA, depends on if the business falls into the 1 MW or greater demand. The
member added, is there any specialized outreach to those entities that might be harder to get involved in these programs. Jeff said that we are consistent across the board with our Key Accounts, but we could be missing other program opportunities. Connie added, we do have a lot of engagement with our cities and have a team who maintains those close relationships. The member stated the question is more about the tribal territories than cities. Connie added that we do have engagement with local tribal communities.
2:25 PM-Wrap-up/Open Discussion – All
Rosemary reminded the group that the next EEAG meeting was November 17th.
Quentin provided an update on some of the responses from the members regarding meeting preference (in
person or virtual) but would like to hear from the rest of the group.
Rosemary then gave each member an opportunity to ask questions or to make their final comments.
Members comments:
Appreciate it today. All the discussions and responses to my questions. Nothing to add, but thanks for
everybody’s time.
No final questions. Thank you for entertaining my questions that I had.
No additional comments for me. Thank you for the informative and enjoyable meeting. I appreciate it.
Thanks everyone. No final questions. Just know it's challenging times and I appreciate everybody working hard and trying to get through it and moving forward. So, thank you.
I do want to thank you for the presentations today. Very informative and some changes going on due to
the lighting. Appreciate active management. Thank you.
I believe you answered all my questions. It was very informative, and you were specific about
everything.
Quentin added that he very much appreciates the time each member takes out of their day to help us.

3:00 PM-Adjourn

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
November 17, 2022
Present
Not Present:
Anna Kim – Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Donn English – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Marissa Warren – Office of Energy & Mineral
Resources
Guests and Presenters*:
Andrea Simmonsen – Idaho Power
Annie Meyer – Idaho Power
Becky Arte Howell – Idaho Power
Billie McWinn* - Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen* - Idaho Power
Curtis Willis – Idaho Power
Dahl Bietz – Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys – Idaho Power
Eli Morris – Applied Energy Group
Eric Shierman - PUC of Oregon
Jason Talford – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jared Hansen – Idaho Power
Jeff Rigby – Idaho Power
Jordan Prassinos – Idaho Power
Julie Rosandick* – Idaho Power
Kathy Yi* – Idaho Power
Kevin Keyt – Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kimberly Loskot – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Krista West – Idaho Power
Laura Conilogue – Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
Landon Barber – Idaho Power
Maggie Buffum – Applied Energy Group
Michelle Toney – Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen – Idaho Power
Nathan Black – Idaho Power
Nick Sayen –Public Utility Commission of
Oregon
Rosemary Curtin – Facilitator
Shelley Martin – Idaho Power
Theresa Drake – Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell – Idaho Power
Zack Thompson – Idaho Power
Note Takers: Michelle Toney and Kathy Yi – Idaho Power

Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Virtual Webex Meeting Convened at 9:33 a.m.
Rosemary convened the meeting and led introductions.
9:35 AM-Announcements
Quentin went over the agenda. There were no questions or comments about the August 2022 meeting
notes or the November agenda. He introduced the newest member to EEAG, Brad Heusinkveld (representing ICL). Quentin added the February 2023 meeting will likely be in person and that the plan for the remaining 2023 meetings will be virtual.
Connie shared that the IPUC approved the prudence request for 2021 expenses and acknowledged the EEAG contributions to the success of Idaho Power’s programs.
9:40 AM-2022 Financials & Savings – Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the DSM savings and costs by sector and program from January through September 2022. He also provided an overview of the program evaluation plans and specific evaluations to be done in 2023 then asked for any feedback.
Questions & Comments:
One member asked if the company is going to separate out expenses from the carryover funding for
HVAC systems from normal WAQC expenses in our reporting, noting it would be helpful for those to be separated out. Billie said those costs will be broken out in the annual report.

9:52 AM-Cost Effectiveness – Kathy Yi
Kathy presented the DSM program’s cost-effectiveness (by sector) with a deeper dive on some specific programs. Kathy went into detail on Commercial Energy Saving Kits (ESK) and discussed several anticipated changes to the savings assumptions in programs such as Green Motors Rewinds, Heating &
Cooling Efficiency, Shade Tree, and Weatherization programs. Kathy presented the Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA) timeline and standards then highlighted those programs that would be affected by EISA with a deeper dive on Student Kits and C&I Retrofits. Discussion and Questions:
Lighting
One member asked if one of the purposes of evaluations is to compare measure weightings to the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) and whether those weightings are adjusted after the evaluation. Kathy said the evaluators do check the TRM numbers but she’s unsure if they check the underlying
weightings. Kathy indicated she would follow up directly after the meeting. Kathy followed up with the member through email after the meeting saying that the weightings for YTD numbers show some building types of weights are close to what we currently have in the TRM (retail and office for example), and other building types seem off (manufacturing and schools for example) and could still be experiencing lingering impacts from COVID. Also noting weightings mostly impact the HVAC

measures and we don’t have many HVAC projects that come through, most projects are lighting which is a straightforward calculation. She also noted that rechecking the weightings with multiple years of data
to absorb and any COVID impacts will be on our to-do list when we update the TRM or have our next program evaluation.
Avoided Costs
One member asked how avoided costs are decreasing despite a recent filing showing increasing forecast prices for natural gas. Kathy said she is not familiar with the filing, but avoided costs are based on the company’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and forecasted gas prices are part of the avoided costs. She added that it is important not to make program changes too quick, however, if a program is not cost-effective for a particular year, then the company might factor in other considerations. Quentin added it is the company’s practice to use acknowledged IRPs and if we see a program not cost-effective but know an update will increase the avoided costs, we will consider that before we make changes.
There was a question about the major driver of the avoided costs flattening out in the IRP. Quentin explained that the high-level reason is the impact of renewable resources. Another member agreed and added that the avoided costs that Kathy presented are annualized costs, but the shorter-term costs and load
shapes are starting to change with the growth of certain renewables. The member used the California Duck Curve example to demonstrate the stress on the system due to the evening ramp.
EISA
One member asked for clarification about the July 1st enforcement date. Kathy said enforcement is progressive, expected by July 1st, but compliance can’t be predicted. The member asked how the commercial kits will be cost-effective in 2023 compared to 2022. Kathy said she is waiting for the final
result of the evaluation to determine the kit savings for 2022, but the new kit vendor had a late start with the new design and there have been fixed costs incurred this year which is why it won’t be cost-effective this year. The evaluator recommended updating the savings using survey results. This could lead to 2023
being cost-effective if future survey results show higher installation rates.
Another member asked what assumptions are made for future savings and if they are strictly based on the life of the bulb. Kathy said the measure is based on the life of the bulb but because of the new standards,
at some point when people replace them, they will have no choice but to get an efficient bulb anyway.
Home Energy Reports
One member asked about the Home Energy Reports one-year program life. Kathy explained that HERs have a one-year life because we send reports every year and claim annual savings. At some point, the program will end, and we will stop sending out reports. However, research shows that savings will continue to persist after customers stop receiving the reports. These savings are not reflected in the one-
year life view.

10:35 AM-Break 10 mins 10:46 AM-Residential Programs – Billie McWinn
Billie presented the overall health of the residential programs in terms of YTD savings. She discussed program impacts from EISA and the Shade Tree program changes.

Discussion & Questions:
There was a question about the saving goals for each year and whether the company achieved its goal in
2021. Billie said savings are broken down by program then by the sector and she is presenting only the residential portfolio. Quentin added our goals are set based on the Energy Efficiency Potential Study and the company achieved its total savings goal in 2021.
Lighting Buy Down
One member asked how the company knows what bulbs are in the stores. Billie said that the program specialist monitors the stores. The member suggested the company also look at the NEEA shelf study.
Welcome Kits
One member asked what will occur after July in the welcome kits. Billie said that we anticipate the kits will contain two lightbulbs and two nightlights but will not claim savings for the lightbulbs beyond July. Funds will be associated with the Education Initiative.
Another member asked why showerheads were removed from the kits. Kathy said the welcome kits had only lighting and noted it was the Energy Saving Kits that had showerheads for customers with electric water heaters. Billie added that the company is always looking for new energy-saving widgets to include. The member added, with electrification, the company may want to look at other measures.
Multifamily
One member asked if the company has already started to close the Multifamily program. Billie said the program ends December 31st and the vendors have been notified.
Shade Tree
One member commented that the smaller trees will grow into the same size as the larger trees and asked how the company accounts for that longer measure and how will the company differentiate the lifespan of
the trees (when they finish growing). Kathy said we adjusted the calculator out one year and the evaluation and audit will help us figure out what happened to those trees. She explained how contractors go out and look at the trees based on the customers program application that has a map of where the trees are located. If the trees aren’t where the customer said, the auditors go back and recalculate. They will then gather all the data and come up with the new savings.
11:00 AM-C&I&I Programs – Chellie Jensen
Chellie provided year-to-date updates (preliminary) participation and savings numbers, changes, and challenges, for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs. Chellie discussed the Small Business Direct Install challenges, reminding EEAG that the program ends in March. She discussed the Custom Project pipeline, the Industrial Wastewater Cohort, and the Find and Fix program. She then noted that some industrial training is back in person, but we are also offering hybrid training. There were no questions or comments.
11:26 AM-Marketing – Julie Rosandick

Julie provided an overview of Program Marketing, she discussed the DR thank you letters, postcards and print materials, Shade Tree, the contest results, College of Idaho signage, Fall Energy Efficiency
residential campaign and the marketing campaign of “Joulie and Wattson” retiring. She showed the new Commercial ESK and Custom Projects flyers. Julie also discussed the latest Energy @Work newsletter for C&I customers.
Discussion & Questions:
Demand Response Marketing
One member highly encourages the company to have the VP or president sign the Irrigation Peak Rewards thank you letters to show how grateful the company is for DR participation. Julie said the company will consider the request. The member asked if there will be more marketing to irrigators. Julie said we will look at other marketing ideas and would like to collaborate further outside of EEAG.
Changes in Programs
One member asked how the marketing materials reflect changes within the programs. Julie said the marketing materials are reviewed by each program specialist with each program change. Annie added that the Corporate Communications and Customer Relations & Energy Efficiency groups frequently meet to discuss program changes. Quentin clarified that in some situations a direct letter is sent to all potential
participants, depending on the type of change and how it may affect participation. It is the company’s intent to give customers time to respond to program changes. Finally, Chellie added that on the commercial side, we also use our field staff the Key Account Energy Advisors and Energy Advisors to
connect with customers directly.
11:39 AM-Lunch 1 Hour
1:00 PM-2022 DR Season Results – Billie McWinn – Chellie Jensen
Billie presented the residential A/C Cool Credit Demand Response (DR) program, discussing participants, enrollment levels, and 2022 event results.
Chellie presented the C&I Flex Peak and Irrigation Peak Rewards DR programs event results. Chellie highlighted some of our marketing and customer engagement on these programs.
Discussion & Questions:
A/C Cool Credit
One member asked why the projected participation declined. Billie said this is just a predictive model from Excel looking at historical numbers. It’s purely based on the last four-year trend and not any other insight.
Another member asked if the company reaches out to customers who no longer participate and find out why they opted out. Billie said the drop out number is small in comparison to the attrition due to
customers moving out of homes. Generally, there are only small amounts of opt outs per event because the program tends to be one where customers sign-up and forget. When people move, they sometimes come back to the program, but that occurs most common when they move into a house with the switch

already installed. She noted there are many participants who may move out of the area or into a home that may not be eligible as there are limiting factors that prevent them from participating.
The member also asked if the company is considering thermostat-based rather than a switch-based program. Regarding a thermostat Program, Billie said that the company has been meeting with vendors and getting price quotes. Quentin will also cover this subject in the next presentation.
Another member asked if the capacity in the program has been close to what it’s been in the past. Billie said at one point we had almost double the number of participants we have, and that program capacity is completely dependent on the number of participants we have enrolled.
Irrigation
One member asked how the later-hour option called Group D is broken out. Chellie said Groups A, B, and C are broken out by region. Group D is the latter option, meaning we can call events up until 11 pm which offers a higher variable incentive, so a participant could be in any region. The member then asked if the company has considered breaking out groups by crop. Quentin explained we have considered that in the past, however that can be complicated. If groups were set by crops, it would have to change every year by site (depending on what the customer planted) and it is not uncommon for one system to irrigate multiple crop types. Quentin also pointed out that it is up to the farmer to consider their crop when
looking at whether to participate in the program.
Another member asked about the breakdown between manual and automatic participants. Quentin responded that the number of manual customers is small, approximately 20 customers on 40 sites,
however the load is a significant portion of the program at around 60MW of potential reduction. The DSM annual report will have the participation information in detail. The member asked if there are issues with manual participants. Chellie responded that they participate well and have a high realization rate
during events.
One member requested clarification about the minimum number of events and asked if the program is economically dispatched. Quentin said there are multiple factors considered for dispatching and market price is one but not the purpose of the program. The main purpose is peak capacity. The minimum number of events also enables the program to regularly test its capabilities. We still have a minimum of three events, but the difference is that the variable payment doesn't kick in until the fifth event. Our Load Serving Operations group ultimately decides when the program is used, however the Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency department also advises on event timing. The main purpose of the program is for when there aren’t other options for resources including the open market.
Another member requested clarification about the event times for the groups and if those events would have been possible prior to the program parameter changes this year. Chellie explained many events went to 10 pm which is new, and Group D had the potential to go to 11 pm. The member then asked if the late option has sites with automatic restart switches and if we track specifically why those customers are willing to participate in the late evening hours. Quentin said we have not asked for that information, but
know it is dependent on the customers willingness or ability to go out and turn their systems back on and how easy or hard it is for them to do that, so we know automation has a lot to do with it.
Flex Peak
One member asked about the July event that was called and then later canceled. Chellie said that this did
not impact customer participation for the remainder of the season, but we are aware it can negatively

affect some customers, she added that the company having the ability to cancel events is an important
feature as system conditions can sometimes change quickly.
One member asked if the later hours were a hurdle for the commercial/industrial customers. Another member responded that for their company there wasn’t any negative feedback or issues. However, they had heard from the farm side of their company, when there’s a late irrigation event, they still need to
check pumps to ensure they come back on. That does cause overtime for the labor, so some fields have been opted out of participating in the program.
1:38 PM-DR Potential Study & EE Potential Study – AEG – Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented the potential study results for both DR and Energy Efficiency (EE). He discussed how the company utilizes the studies in its IRP. Quentin introduced AEG, hired to complete the studies, and said Eli Morris and Maggie Buffum from AEG were available to answer detailed questions on the studies.
Discussion & Questions:
One member asked about the assumptions and costs used to model the pricing-based DR programs.
Quentin answered that this includes the fixed and variable costs, software, admin, and incentives. We look at the differential of the rate as being an incentive and include that in the costs.
Another member asked if the study accounts for the overlap in A/C switches and a Bring Your Own
Thermostat (BYOT) program. Quentin answered that AEG did account for this, and in their study gave priority to the switches but recognized that there are customers that would not participate in A/C but would participate in BYOT. The member then asked if the BYOT overlapped other EE opportunities or
measures. Eli answered that they did model the assumption that smart thermostats would grow over time, but they did not model the cost coincidence between EE/DR. The member asked if the $92 for the BYOT program is a fixed cost. Quentin said it is an all-inclusive cost and includes software, incentives, and the cost that Idaho Power would have to incur to go through a third-party vendor to get access to the thermostats. All costs are gathered up and the $92 is levelized over the life of the program. Eli added, it’s levelized over a 20-year period.
One member asked if the DR program estimated costs included fixed costs underlying adoption of each program. Quentin answered that all aspects of each of the program’s costs are estimated, including startup, vendor costs, and customer incentive costs. The member then asked if sunk costs of the DR programs are already accounted for. Quentin responded that those costs are not included, only estimated costs going forward are included.
Another member asked if the study looked at DR as a flexible resource. Jared said the company is modeling DR differently than in the past and asked for clarification on what aspect of flexibility is being referred to. The member said mostly due to significant ramping and the duck curve. Jared answered that
the primary point of analysis surrounds the timing of the net peak. The member then asked why the grid enabled water heater is so expensive. Eli responded that this is due to the underlying assumptions and that there are high fixed costs being spread over a small number of units.
A guest asked how the costs are impacted by the assumption of how many events are called per season. Quentin answered depends on the program design. Our existing programs have fixed incentives, and then a variable incentive for our C&I and irrigation program after the 4th event. The costs assume full use of
the programs. The guest then asked if this includes more costs than a supply side resource shown in the IRP information. Jared said that it depends on the data in the IRP, but that capacity and operating costs

are considered in the IRP. Jared also said the more cost-effective supply side resources tend to be closer to the $50 per kW range but added that it is not always a perfect comparison from the numbers alone due
to inherent differences in operating characteristics and timing availability of each resource.
2:14 PM-Wrap-up/Open Discussion – All
Quentin discussed future meetings. Our current plan for 2023 is one in person and three virtual meetings and stated that the plan is to have the February meeting in person, but we will continue to evaluate. He noted that we will send out a Doodle poll in December to narrow down the dates for 2023.
Rosemary asked everyone if there were any comments or further questions.
There we no further questions or comments.

2:16 PM-Adjourn

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 35
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager
2018 Washington State Energy Code Energy Savings Analysis
for Nonresidential Buildings
Commercial NORESCO NEEA
Advanced Water Heating Specification Residential NEEA NEEA
Analysis of Expanded Efficiency Parameters for Very High
Efficiency DOAS
Commercial Red Car Analytics NEEA
Building Commissioning—2021 Long Term Monitoring and
Tracking Report
Commercial The Cadmus Group NEEA
Commercial Boilers Standard Evaluation Commercial Michaels Energy NEEA
Commercial HPWH Qualified Products List Commercial NEEA NEEA
CTA-2045 Water Heater Demonstration Project Residential BPA NEEA
Demand Response of Residential HVAC Residential Cadeo Group NEEA
Efficient Rooftop Unit Tiers Market Research Commercial D + R International NEEA
Energy Savings from Efficient Rooftop Units in Heating
Dominated Climates
Commercial Cadeo Group and Big Ladder
Software
NEEA
ENERGY STAR Top-Load Clothes Washer Naturally Occurring
Baseline Review
Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Extended Motor Products Pump and Circulator
Manufacturers' Representative Pilot: Market Test Assessment
Commercial Johnson Consulting Group NEEA
Extended Motor Products Regional Market Share Study Commercial ADM Associates NEEA
Gas-Fired Rooftop Unit Efficiency Testing Task 3 Report Commercial NRCan NEEA
Green Motor Rewinds—2021 Long-Term Monitoring and
Tracking Report
Commercial The Cadmus Group NEEA
Heat Pump and Air Conditioner Efficiency Ratings:
Why Metrics Matter
Residential Bruce Harley Energy
Consulting
NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heater Benefit/Cost Model Review Residential Larson Energy Research NEEA
Heat Pump Water Heaters in Small Spaces Lab Testing:
“The Amazing Shrinking Room”
Residential Larson Energy Research and
Cascade Engineering Services
NEEA
High-Performance Windows Market Characterization Study Residential and Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA
NEEA 2023 Operations Plan Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q1 2022 Codes and Standards Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q1 2022 Market Progress Report Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q1 2022 Quarterly Report Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q2 2022 Codes and Standards Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q2 2022 Market Progress Report Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q2 2022 Quarterly Report Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager
NEEA Q3 2022 Codes Standards and New Construction
Newsletter
Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q3 2022 Market Progress Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q3 2022 Quarterly Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2021 Codes and Standards Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Q4 2021 Quarterly Report Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
NEEA Washington Energy Code Study—Frequently Asked
Questions
Residential and
Commercial
TRC NEEA
Northwest Heat Pump Water Heater Market Progress
Evaluation Report #6
Residential NMR Group NEEA
Perfect Pairings? Testing the Energy Efficiency of Matched
Washer-Dryer Sets
Residential Kannah Consulting NEEA
Plug-In Heat Pump Water Heaters: An Early Look to 120-Volt
Products
Residential Larson Energy Research and
Cascade Engineering Services
NEEA
Power Drive System Retrofit Opportunities in the Northwest Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA
Pricing Research for Efficient Water Heaters Residential Lieberman Research Group
and ILLUME Advising
NEEA
Pump Energy Rating Label Awareness and Use Study Commercial Johnson Consulting Group NEEA
Q1 2022 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q1 2022 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
Q2 2022 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and
Commercial
NEEA NEEA
Q2 2022 Market Research and Evaluations Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
Q3 2022 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
Q3 2022 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
Q4 2021 Emerging Technology Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
Q4 2022 Market Research and Evaluation Newsletter Residential and Commercial NEEA NEEA
RBSA 2022 Webinar #4 Slides Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA
RBSA 2022 Webinar #5 Slides Residential NEEA NEEA
RBSA 2022 Webinar #6 Slides Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA
Refrigerator and Freezer Influence Assessment and Baseline Review Residential Apex Analytics NEEA
Residential Heat Pump Water Heater Qualified Products List Residential NEEA NEEA
Residential HVAC Contractor Market Research Residential Lieberman Research NEEA
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 37
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager
Review of Market Share Forecast and Key Assumptions for
Efficient Rooftop Units
Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA
Review of Market Share Forecast and Key Assumptions for
VHE DOAS
Commercial The Cadmus Group NEEA
Room Air Conditioners: ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Influence
Evaluation and Baseline Assumptions Review
Residential TRC Engineers NEEA
Study of Influences on Northwest Variable Speed Heat Pump
Adoption
Residential and
Commercial
Lieberman Research Group NEEA
Summary of Field Evaluation of Non-Glass Interior Secondary
Window Attachments
Commercial Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
NEEA
Televisions: ENERGY STAR Version 9 Specification Influence
Assessment and Baseline Assumptions Review
Residential TRC Engineers NEEA
Uninterruptible Power Supplies Standard Evaluation Commercial Michaels Energy NEEA
Variable Speed Heat Pump Product Assessment and Analysis Residential Center for Energy and
Environment
NEEA
Variable Speed Heat Pumps – Technical Best Practices
Gap Analysis
Residential TRC Engineers NEEA
VHE DOAS Commercial Building Decision Makers
Market Research Commercial Hayden + Tanner NEEA
Washington 2015 Commercial Construction Code
Evaluation Study Commercial Cadmus NEEA
Washington Residential Post-Code Market Research Report Residential TRC Engineers 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 38 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 39
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2022 Task 1: Foundational Services—
Summary of Projects
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2022 Task 2: Lunch and Learn—Summary of
Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and Education
2022 Task 3: BSUG—Summary of Effort
and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Training and Education
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications—
Summary of Projects
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Verifications
2022 Task 5: Energy Resource Library—
Summary of Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet—
Demonstration Project
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Research
2022 Task 7: LLLC Workshop—Summary of
Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education
2022 Task 8: Digital Design Tools—Summary of
Effort and Outcomes
Commercial IDL Idaho Power Assistance and Education

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 40 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

Report Number: 2022_001-01

2022 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 # 8112

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2022). 2022
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(2022_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
RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN
THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY
DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE
PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE 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
2022 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical design
assistance in 2022 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
Information on the Foundational Services program was provided at each Lunch
and Learn and BSUG presentation. Advertising for the program was also offered over
the course of the year to local government officials, developers, and the architects and
engineers who interacted with IDL.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2022 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-01)

2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The IDL worked on over 16 Foundational Service projects in 2022. Projects
ranged from commercial to municipal and the IDL worked with both architecture and
engineering firms within Idaho Power Service territory. Most project intake came
through a phone call or email to the IDL. A tab is also available on the IDL website for
people to submit requests for technical support through the foundational services
program.
Projects consisted of email responses, personal trainings, technical reports, and
memos. In total, there were twelve Phase I projects, three Phase II projects, and one
Phase III project. The full list of projects is shown in Table 1 below.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2022 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-01)

Table 1: Summary of 2022 Foundational Services Projects

Project Type Phase Notes Retro/New Ft2 Location
Warehouse 1 Design charette for VRF retrofit Retro 21,000 Ada County
Industrial 2 Daylighting analysis training New 40,000 Ada County
Office 2 Energy modeling tool analysis New 3,500 Ada County
Municipal 1 Load diversification New 32,000 Ada County
Software 1 Code compliance New ??Canyon County
Military 3 Training on energy audits and strategic
energy management Retro 30,000 Ada County
Grocery 1 Modeling assistance for baseline New NA Ada County
Recreation 2 Insulation and pump vfd option research New 30,000 Ada County
Data Center 1 Natural ventilation method exploration New 500 Ada County
Software 1 Assistance on energy modeling workflow NA Ada County
Charity 1 Envelope and operational savings
investigation forfacility Retro 3000 Gem County
Warehouse 1 Skylight spacing strategies for particular
products New NA Ada County
Small Business 1 Incentive option review for SMB (small to
mid-size businesses)New NA Ada County
Charity 1 Analysis of cooling bills and IAQ Retro 70,000 Ada County
Mixed Use 1 Researching insulation performance in
cold climates New NA Blaine County
Rooftop HVAC 1 Review of IAQ savings calculation
method Retro NA Blaine County

Report Number: 2022_002-01

2022 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 #8112
Agnes, D.,(2022). 2022 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2022_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. 2022 Summary and Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................ 9
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Session 1: LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits (08/31/2022) .............................................. 14
2.2 Session 2: The Future of Lighting Controls (09/14/2022) ............................................ 14
2.3 Session 3: High Performance Classrooms (09/15/2022) ............................................. 15
2.4 Session 4: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (09/20/2022) ........... 16
2.5 Session 5: The Future of Lighting Controls (09/28/2022) ............................................ 16
2.6 Session 6: Daylighting Multipliers (09/29/2022)........................................................... 17
2.7 Session 7: LLLC Training Trial Run (09/30/2022) ......................................................... 17
2.8 Session 8: LLLC Training (10/05/2022) ......................................................................... 18
2.9 Session 9: The Future of Lighting Controls (10/06/2022) ............................................ 18
2.10 Session 10: ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC
Systems (10/18/2022) ........................................................................................................... 19
2.11 Session 11: LED Technology Impact on Savings and Efficiency (10/21/2022) ........ 20
2.12 Session 12: Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (10/28/2022) ..................................... 20
2.13 Session 13: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (11/10/2022) ................................... 21
2.14 Session 14: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (11/17/2022) .................................... 22
3. Future Work.............................................................................................................................. 23
4. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Session 1: LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits (08/31/2022) ....................................... 23
4.1.2 Session 2: The Future of Lighting Controls (09/14/2022) .................................... 24
4.1.3 Session 3: High Performance Classrooms (09/15/2022) ...................................... 26
4.1.4 Session 4: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (09/20/2022) .... 27
4.1.5 Session 5: The Future of Lighting Controls (09/28/2022) ..................................... 28
4.1.6 Session 6: Daylighting Multipliers (09/29/2022).................................................... 29
4.1.7 Session 7: LLLC Training Trial Run (09/30/2022) .................................................. 30
4.1.8 Session 8: LLLC Training (10/05/2022) .................................................................. 31
4.1.9 Session 9: The Future of Lighting Controls (10/06/2022) .................................... 32
4.1.10 Session 10: ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC
Systems (10/18/2022) ....................................................................................................... 34

vii

4.1.11 Session 11:LED Technology Impact on Savnigs and Efficiency (10/21/2022) .. 35
4.1.12 Session 12: Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (10/28/2022) .............................. 36
4.1.13 Session 13: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (11/10/2022) ............................ 37
4.1.14 Session 14: Thermal Energy Storage Systems (11/17/2022) ............................ 38

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. 2022 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2022 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 08/31 LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits – In Person Dylan Agnes A1 7
2 09/14 The Future of Lighting Controls – In Person Dylan Agnes A1 7
3 09/15 High Performance Classrooms – In Person Damon Woods A2 7
4 09/20 Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration – In Person Damon Woods E1 5
5 09/28 The Future of Lighting Controls – In Person Dylan Agnes E2 10
6 09/29 Daylighting Multipliers – In Person Dylan Agnes A3 9
7 09/30 LLLC Training Trial Run – In Person Dylan Agnes OL 4
8 10/05 LLLC Training – In Person Dylan Agnes OL 10
9 10/06 The Future of Lighting Controls – In Person Dylan Agnes A2 7
10 10/18 ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC Systems Damon Woods E1 6

10

Table 1 on the previous page summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2022. 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, (see table 2). All lunch and learn presentations given in 2022
were in-person presentations and scheduling for lectures did not begin until mid-August.

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

11

Profession of Attendee Breakdown

12

7
7
7
5
9
4
6
7
8
7
6
10
10
7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LEED V4.1 Daylighting Credits
The Future of Lighting Controls
High Performance Classrooms
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
Daylighting Multipliers
LLLC Training
ASHRAE 36 High Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC Systems
LED Technology Impact on Savings and Efficiency
Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

13

4.52 4.55 4.51 4.65 4.88 4.61
3.53
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
In general, today'spresentation was:Rate organization:Rate clarity:Rate opportunity forquestions:Rate instructor'sknowledge of thesubject matter:
Rate delivery ofpresentation:The content of thepresentation was:
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
LEED V4.1 Daylighting
Credits
The Future of Lighting
Controls
High Performance
Classrooms
Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems (DOAS)
Integration
The Future of Lighting
Controls
Daylighting Multipliers LLLC Training LLLC Training The Future of Lighting
Controls
ASHRAE 36 High
Performance
Sequences ofOperation for HVAC
Systems
LED Technology
Impact on Savings
and Efficiency
Ultraviolet Germicidal
Irradiation
Luminaire Level
Lighting Controls
Thermal Energy
Storage Systems
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 handed out to
participants. 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: LEED V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS (08/31/2022)
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:

2.2 SESSION 2: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (09/14/2022)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting

15

Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.3 SESSION 3: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (09/15/2022)
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:

16

2.4 SESSION 4: DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS (DOAS) INTEGRATION (09/20/2022)
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 FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (09/28/2022)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

Presentation Info:

17

Attendance:

2.6 SESSION 6: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS (09/29/2022)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers
This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the efficiency of daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building, such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and
material specification. Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return, the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate
uses between daylighting strategies and multipliers.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.7 SESSION 7: LLLC TRAINING TRIAL RUN (09/30/2022)
Title: LLLC Training Trial Run
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.

18

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.8 SESSION 8: LLLC TRAINING (10/05/2022)
Title: LLLC Training
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:

Attendance:

2.9 SESSION 9: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (10/06/2022)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls

19

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

Attendance:

2.10 SESSION 10: ASHRAE 36 HIGH PERFORMANCE SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC
SYSTEMS (10/18/2022)
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:

20

2.11 SESSION 11: LED TECHNOLOGY IMPACT ON SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY (10/21/2022)
Title: LED Technology Impact on Savings and Efficiency
We will examine the effect LED technology has had on energy savings, control strategies, and
future implications with continued efficient lighting technology. As lighting technology becomes more efficient it
will adjust codes, incentives from utilities, and energy efficiency standards. More importantly, it will change the
cost benefit analysis regarding lighting, control strategies, and occupant comfort. The LED revolution for
lighting is not done and, in this lecture, we will discuss the current state of LEDs as well as the direction we are
going and what we might find when we arrive.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.12 SESSION 12: ULTRAVIOLET GERMICIDAL IRRADIATION (10/28/2022)
Title: Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation
With the arrival of COVID, there has been a surge of interest in Ultra Violet Germicidal Irradiation.
During our research, the IDL found that UV systems can actually save on operational costs by reducing fan
energy. Attendees will learn about the different UV technologies available, the strength needed to kill
pathogens in air streams, and how to minimize the energy used to run these systems. This lecture will draw
from leading researchers such as William Bahnfleth, who chaired ASHRAE’s Epidemic Task Force. By installing
UVGI systems in front of cooling coils, these can help prevent microbial growth and ensure better airflow
throughout the building. With building occupants increasingly mindful of airborne contaminates, it’s important
for architects and engineers to be aware of these systems and how they can be integrated into a building.

21

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.13 SESSION 13: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (11/10/2022)
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:

Attendance:

22

2.14 SESSION 14: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (11/17/2022)
Title: Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Thermal Energy Storage Systems (TES) are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy
use. This lecture will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.
This technology can be paired with ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the high and low temperatures (sometimes up to 30 F), which
makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and cooling equipment should operate. By
understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique configurations that can increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

23

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 76 Lunch and Learn evaluations received
throughout 2022. The comments from these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch
and Learn topics.
4. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was requested from each
participant. The feedback will be 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 have not been edited in most cases, many appear exactly how the
participant entered them online or how they were interpreted for translation from hand-written forms.
4.1.1 SESSION 1: LEED V4.1 DAYLIGHTING CREDITS (08/31/2022)
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:

24

Attendance:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.8 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
• More visuals
•
• Case study (x3) at the end helped wrap together the presentation as a whole.
• Explanation of the new LEED V4.1 vs v4 updates
•
•
• Walkthrough for benchmarking buildings models. Work flows for integrating energy analysis into
projects.
•
4.1.2 SESSION 2: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (09/14/2022)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an

25

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.

Date: 09/14/22

Location: A1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Architect: 3 Electrician:

Engineer:

Contractor:

Mech. Engineer:

Other*: 4
Elec. Engineer:

None Specified:

Total (In-Person): 7

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected due to technical difficulties Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.9 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
• None, great job!
• Great job!
• Case study
•
• Extensive knowledge well explained
• Integration and information for new technology
• Examples of real life situations
• The flexibility of lighting and power
• Learning about systems
•
•

26

•

4.1.3 SESSION 3: HIGH PERFORMANCE CLASSROOMS (09/15/2022)
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:

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected for this webinar. Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.7 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.7 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
• Great job!
•

27

• All of it, well done – thank you
• Outside air issues
• CO2 information and combined effect of systems
• Good presentation overall
•
•
• UVGI
• HVAC
•

4.1.4 SESSION 4: DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS (DOAS) INTEGRATION (09/20/2022)
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

•
• Independent opinions – not a manufacturer Rep.
• Information on DOAS was good
•
•
•
4.1.5 SESSION 5: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (09/28/2022)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 3.9 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful

29

Rate organization: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.7 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
• Real world example are always great
• Lots of acronyms, but he did explain them. Hadn’t heard of a lot of them.
•
• Future outlook
• Discussion about how there are used or could be
• PoE talks, power is what I do, so cool new info for me
• Good information on the future product to come and capabilities of future controls
•
•
• Incentive program updates
• Lighting controls, occupancy sensors, time switches
• Incentive program updates
•

4.1.6 SESSION 6: DAYLIGHTING MULTIPLIERS (09/29/2022)
Title: Daylighting Multipliers
This session will explore the role that daylighting multipliers are used when trying to increase the
efficiency of daylighting or daylight harvesting in a building, such as, light shelves, manufactured glazing, and
material specification. Furthermore, we will explore the rate of return, the ranges of efficiency, and appropriate
uses between daylighting strategies and multipliers.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

30

Evaluations:

Scale

In general, today's presentation was: 4.2 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
Rate organization: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate opportunity for questions: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
Rate delivery of presentation: 4.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
The content of the presentation was: 3.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too

• As a former teacher, I would suggest opportunities to check participants understanding of
•
•
•
4.1.7 SESSION 7: LLLC TRAINING TRIAL RUN (09/30/2022)
Title: LLLC Training Trial Run
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:

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

4.1.8 SESSION 8: LLLC TRAINING (10/05/2022)
Title: LLLC Training
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:

32

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
• Very good presentation
• None needed
• Good presentation, possibly slow down a bit
•
• Explanation on occupancy and vacancy settings
• System capability
• Opportunity for future trainings
•
•
•

4.1.9 SESSION 9: THE FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (10/06/2022)
Title: The Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have

33

come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

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
•
• I thought everything was super interesting especially since I have smart lights in my house
• Education on what to expect in future development of lighting controls
• New technologies
•
•
• Taking this idea to the exterior/environment for safety purposes
•

34

4.1.10 SESSION 10: ASHRAE 36 HIGH PERFORMANCE SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC
SYSTEMS (10/18/2022)
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
•
• Chatting about projects
•
•

35

•

4.1.11 SESSION 11:LED TECHNOLOGY IMPACT ON SAVNIGS AND EFFICIENCY (10/21/2022)
Title: LED Technology Impact on Savings and Efficiency
We will examine the effect LED technology has had on energy savings, control strategies, and
future implications with continued efficient lighting technology. As lighting technology becomes more efficient it
will adjust codes, incentives from utilities, and energy efficiency standards. More importantly, it will change the
cost benefit analysis regarding lighting, control strategies, and occupant comfort. The LED revolution for
lighting is not done and, in this lecture, we will discuss the current state of LEDs as well as the direction we are
going and what we might find when we arrive.

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
• Take more time in lecture for questions
• 50 mins of information that can be expanded into a day of information
• It would be interesting to see the energy difference between 1 and 2 daylight sensors
• Yellow is difficult to read on screen
•

36

• The future of commercial application for smart lighting systems
• Future of coming attractions
• Comparisons between LED and Fluorescents
•
•
• Again, too much information condensed into one presentation, break it up into more
presentations
•

4.1.12 SESSION 12: ULTRAVIOLET GERMICIDAL IRRADIATION (10/28/2022)
Title: Ultraviolet Germicidal irradiation
With the arrival of COVID, there has been a surge of interest in Ultra Violet Germicidal Irradiation.
During our research, the IDL found that UV systems can actually save on operational costs by reducing fan
energy. Attendees will learn about the different UV technologies available, the strength needed to kill
pathogens in air streams, and how to minimize the energy used to run these systems. This lecture will draw
from leading researchers such as William Bahnfleth, who chaired ASHRAE’s Epidemic Task Force. By installing
UVGI systems in front of cooling coils, these can help prevent microbial growth and ensure better airflow
throughout the building. With building occupants increasingly mindful of airborne contaminates, it’s important
for architects and engineers to be aware of these systems and how they can be integrated into a building.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

37

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
•
• Great information on a topic I wasn’t familiar with
• Topic – Timely
•
•
•

4.1.13 SESSION 13: LUMINAIRE LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS (11/10/2022)
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:

38

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
The content of the presentation was: 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
• Need learning objectives upfront. Hard to understand why jumping into NLC vs LLLC until several
slides in
• Give away item (Swag)/Local examples of the system being presented
•
• The example of lights on/off dimmed in a cubicle/open office/hallway vs daylight
• Explanation of LLLCs – How to use and best use them. The breakdown using graphics that makes
the info easier to absorb
•
•
•
4.1.14 SESSION 14: THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (11/17/2022)
Title: Thermal Energy Storage Systems
Thermal Energy Storage Systems (TES) are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak energy use. This lecture will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize chiller and boiler use.
This technology can be paired with ground-source heat pumps, radiant systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho
typically has large temperature swings between the high and low temperatures (sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited to shifting when heating and cooling equipment should operate. By
understanding more about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique configurations that can
increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.

39

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
•
• Thinking about different options
• Opportunities for geothermal systems and combined systems
•
•
•

40

APPENDIX B: LUNCH AND LEARN 2022 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.

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.

With the arrival of COVID, there has been a surge of interest in Ultra Violet Germicidal
Irradiation. During our research, the IDL found that UV systems can actually save on
operational costs by reducing fan energy. Attendees will learn about the different UV
technologies available, the strength needed to kill pathogens in air streams, and how to
minimize the energy used to run these systems. This lecture will draw from leading
researchers such as William Bahnfleth, who chaired ASHRAE’s Epidemic Task Force. By
installing UVGI systems in front of cooling coils, these can help prevent microbial growth and
ensure better airflow throughout the building. With building occupants increasingly mindful
of airborne contaminates, it’s important for architects and engineers to be aware of these
systems and how they can be integrated into a building.

Thermal Energy Storage Systems (TES) are gaining popularity as a way to mitigate peak
energy use. This lecture will explore the use of things like ice-storage and ponds to minimize
chiller and boiler use. This technology can be paired with ground-source heat pumps, radiant
systems, and natural ventilation. Idaho typically has large temperature swings between the
high and low temperatures (sometimes up to 30 F), which makes our state especially suited
to shifting when heating and cooling equipment should operate. By understanding more
about TES, engineers and architects alike can design unique configurations that can
increase efficiency and enhance resiliency in their buildings.

41

We will examine the effect LED technology has had on energy savings, control strategies,
and future implications with continued efficient lighting technology. As lighting technology
becomes more efficient it will adjust codes, incentives from utilities, and energy efficiency
standards. More importantly, it will change the cost benefit analysis regarding lighting,
control strategies, and occupant comfort. The LED revolution for lighting is not done and, in
this lecture, we will discuss the current state of LEDs as well as the direction we are going
and what we might find when we arrive.

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.

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.

42

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.

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.

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-

43

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: 2022_003-01

2022 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2022). 2022 TASK 3:
BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (2022_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 RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF THE 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. 2022 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
2022 Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 4
2022 Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
Session 1: Indoor Air Quality Impact Modeling (3/30/22) .......................................................... 6
Session 2: Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems (04/27/22) ............................... 6
Session 3: Embodied Carbon, Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment, and Energy Efficiency
(05/25/22) ................................................................................................................................... 7
Session 4: Benchmarking Buildings, EnergyStar, and DDX (08/24/22) ....................................... 8
Session 5: Energy Codes in Idaho (09/21/22) ............................................................................. 8
Session 6: Creating an Efficient Workflow to Design a Day-lit, Glare Free, Energy Efficient
Building (10/26/22) ..................................................................................................................... 9
5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 11
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 11
7. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A: BSUG 2022 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 2022 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. 2022 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2022, 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
3/30 Indoor Air Quality Impact Modeling Kelsey Ramsey IDL - 22 - 22
5/25 AE - 60 - 30
10/26 Marco Aguirre Cove 11 34 8 -
23 231 92 103
254 195
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2022 Attendance

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 16 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 23 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other: 154
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 0
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online): Total (Combined):

0
0
0
13
71
8
22
29
30
9
13
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Indoor Air Quality Impact Modeling
Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems
Embodied Carbon, Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment,and Energy Efficiency
Benchmarking Buildings EnergyStar and DDX
Energy Codes in Idaho
Creating an Efficient Workflow to Design a Day-lit, Glare-
free, Energy Efficient Building
Number of Attendees In-Person Online

Architect8%
Engineer
12%
Mech.
Engineer
1%
Other
79%
Total
(In-
Person)
47%
Total (Online)53%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2022 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
Indoor Air Quality ImpactModeling Decarbonized Building andDistrict Energy Systems Embodied Carbon, WholeBuilding Life CycleAssessment, and EnergyEfficiency
Benchmarking BuildingsEnergyStar and DDX Energy Codes in Idaho Creating an EfficientWorkflow to Design a Day-lit,Glare-free, Energy EfficientBuilding
Average Evaluation Scores By Session
In general, today's presentation was:Rate organization:Rate clarity:
Rate opportunity for questions:Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter:Rate delivery of presentation:
The content of the presentation was:
3.97 4.35 4.37 4.60 4.65 4.29
3.23
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: Indoor Air Quality Impact Modeling (3/30/22)
Title: Indoor Air Quality Impact Modeling
Date: 03/30/22
Description: COVID-19 has brought the issue of indoor air quality to the forefront of building science.
Virus mitigation strategies range in effectiveness, efficiency, and costs depending on the building type,
use types, and local climate. Using Open Studio and Energy+, the IDL examined the energy and cost
impacts of six different mitigation strategies for commercial buildings in the Treasure Valley.
Presenter: Kelsey Ramsey

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 5
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Principal, Building Surveyor, Project Consultant, PhD Student

Session 2: Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems (04/27/22)
Title: Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems
Date: 04/27/22
Description: Due to demands caused by climate change, the energy sector is undergoing a rapid
transition. Energy systems for buildings and communities need to become decarbonized, grid-
responsive/efficient, resilient, and adaptive to changes in usage, technology options, and markets. This
leads to increased complexity in their design and operation. Fortunately, new energy systems provide an
opportunity to integrate and optimize renewables and storage across multiple prosumers and energy
carriers. New system architectures and control challenges emerge, as do new requirements on design
flows that can manage the increased complexity. After laying out these challenges, we will present
recent progress on new generation computational tools for building and district energy and control
systems. We will also present new tool chains that allow for rapid system-level prototyping, model-
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
based design flow and digitization, ranging from design to installation and operation. We will close with
a discussion about what foundation should be built to meet design and operation challenges of
decarbonized energy efficient systems.
Presenter: Michael Wetter
Attendance:
Session 3: Embodied Carbon, Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment, and Energy Efficiency
(05/25/22)
Title: Embodied Carbon, Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment, and Energy Efficiency
Date: 05/25/22
Description: The built industry has focused its efforts on measuring and reducing operational carbon
emissions, carbon emissions related to materials used in our projects is gaining relevance; measuring,
understanding, and reducing these emissions should be a key addition to all design practices. This
presentation will cover general embodied carbon concepts, Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment
(WBLCA) tools to quantity embodied carbon in buildings, and tools for all disciplines to start the
conversations.
Presenter: Victoria Herrero-Garcia
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 4
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 15
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Designer, Systems Analyst, PhD Student, Director of Building and Grounds

Architect: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 3 Other*: 6
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 19
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):

*If 'Other' was
noted:
Director of Energy and Utilities, Student, Building System Analyst, Professor
Emeritus

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
Session 4: Benchmarking Buildings, EnergyStar, and DDX (08/24/22)
Title: Benchmarking Buildings, EnergyStar, and DDX
Date: 08/24/22
Description: Benchmarking is a method for measuring a building’s energy efficiency by comparing its
energy use to other buildings with similar functions (commercial office, school, warehouse, etc…).
Benchmarking allows owners to take a snapshot of how their building is performing currently in regards
to energy consumption and then compare the performance to other buildings to infer if improvements
can be made. In addition, software developed by the Government or organizations, AIA and AHSRAE,
can be used to further evaluate a building’s performance. Software, such as, EnergyStar’s Portfolio
Manager will assist with tracking a building, sharing information, performing data analysis, setting goals,
and meeting those goals.
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Interior Design

Session 5: Energy Codes in Idaho (09/21/22)
Title: Energy Codes in Idaho
Date: 09/21/22
Description: The energy code and its value to Idahoans is under great discussion and debate in recent
months as the Idaho Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses has brought all codes under full
review in response to the Governor’s Executive Order for Zero-Based Rulemaking. As rule makers
engage with the public through these discussions, questions arise about what value an energy code, or
specific sections therein, bring to a state like Idaho and its local communities. The discussion will be
moderated by Dan Russell, PE.
• Do the measures captured in the energy code actually save building owners money?
• Are the measures cost-effective?
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
• Do energy code measures offer any life safety, health or environmental quality benefits?
• Are energy code measures enforceable?
• Does the energy code pose an undue burden on those financing building construction?
• Does the energy code benefit any stakeholders in a uniquely positive way?
• How does the energy code or lack of one impact the local electric utility demand and associated
payer rates?
• Can the energy code be feasibly diced up into sections or individual measures such that there is
a middle ground between retaining the full energy code and eliminating it all together?
• If so, what specific measures are best candidates for meeting this middle ground?

Many of these questions and possibly questions you have will be discussed by this industry panel. We
believe this is an extremely timely topic for our Society, our Chapter and our Idaho community. Please
register today to join us and we encourage you to submit 1 or 2 questions during the registration
process that you would like to be considered for inclusion in the question set for the panel.
Presenters: Michael Hyde, Patrick Sullivan, Mike Jones, Damon Woods, Bob Tikker
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 84 Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted:

Session 6: Creating an Efficient Workflow to Design a Day-lit, Glare Free, Energy Efficient
Building (10/26/22)
Title: Creating an Efficient Workflow to Design a Day-lit, Glare Free, Energy Efficient
Date: 10/26/22
Description: In this webinar, we will look at typical challenges that prevent the adoption of internal
sustainability approaches as well as the business benefits of standardizing a sustainability workflow. We
will learn how to use data-driven design to balance sustainability and cost and how platforms like
cove.tool are integrating new technologies to help design teams win more projects and stay ahead of
the conversation. By the end, attendees will have a new understanding of putting together an analysis
checklist and how to reach their performance targets.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
Presenter: Marco Aguirre

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Student

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. 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. The IDL developed a blog section within the BSUG content where we post on
past topics, emerging technologies, and simulation software workflows.
6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
We saw an increase in average attendance for each session this year as well as overall
attendance from 2021. 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 still down.
Attendance this year was successful for the BSUG task with 6 sessions completed and 195 total
attendees – 92 in-person and 103 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 64 responses with a response rate of 33% in 2022. The ZOOM platform does not allow
participants to give written comments as a form of feedback for polling. Comments moving
forward will be limited to in-person evaluations.
A round table meeting was held on December 7th, 2022 to provide feedback on topics
presented this year as well as suggestions for 2023 lecture topics. The feedback is summarized
below. In addition, we have an online survey for participants who attend via webinar to also
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
provide feedback. The results of the online survey will be presented in the 2023 kick off
meeting.
• Benchmarking building case studies (Warehouse, Office, School)
• An emerging technology
• Quality control measures/manage building upgrades
• Grasshopper pollination tool
• Project Stasio (data visualization)
• Warehouse efficient design and practices
• BetterBricks software
• ASHRAE join session (standard assumption inputs)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A: BSUG 2022 Evaluations
Summaries of evaluations for each of the 6 sessions are recorded below. It should be
noted that comments typically collected with evaluation are unavailable due to restriction from
the ZOOM platform.
Session 1 (03/30/22): Indoor Air Quality Impact Modeling
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/30/22
Location: Online Webinar
Presenter: Kelsey Ramsey – IDL

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 5 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9 Total (In-Person): Total (Online): 22
*If 'Other' was noted: Principal, Building Surveyor, Project Consultant, PhD Student
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.1 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 4.7 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.2 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate delivery of presentation: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent The content of the presentation was: 3.4 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
Session 2 (04/27/21): Decarbonized Building and District Energy Systems
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/27/2022
Location: Online Webinar
Presenter: Michael Wetter – LBNL
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 6
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 19
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online): 29
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale 3.7 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
4.3 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.1 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.9
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
Session 3 (05/25/22): Embodied Carbon, Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment, and Energy
Efficiency
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/25/2022
Location: Online Webinar
Presenter: Victoria Herrero-Garcia – AE
Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 4
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 15
Total (In-Person): 0
Total (Online): 30
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: Scale 4.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.3
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
Session 4 (08/24/22): Benchmarking Buildings, EnergyStar, and DDX
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/24/2022
Location: IDL
Presenter: Dylan Agnes – IDL

Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 1 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9 Total (In-Person): 13 Total (Online): 9
*If 'Other' was noted: Interior Design
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.1 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 3.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 4.4 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 4.9 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: 2.7 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too
Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
Session 5 (09/21/22): Energy Codes in Idaho
Session 6 (10/26/22): Creating an Efficient Workflow to Design a Day-lit, Glare-free, Energy
Efficient Building
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/26/2022
Location: IDL
Presenter: Marco Aguirre – Cove

Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): 8 Total (Online): 0
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/21/2022
Location: The Creative Space
Presenters: Michael Hyde, Patrick Sullivan, Mike Jones, Damon Woods, Bob Tikker –
ASHRAE Panel
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 84 Total (In-Person): 71 Total (Online): 13
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluations: No evaluations were collected Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 0.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate delivery of presentation: 0.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent The content of the presentation was: 0.0 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced
Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
*If 'Other' was noted: Student
Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.0 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful Rate organization: 4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate clarity: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate opportunity for questions: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter: 4.9 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent Rate delivery of presentation: 4.5 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent The content of the presentation was: 2.9 1 Too Basic - 3 Just Right - 5 Too Advanced

Comments: No comments were made on evaluations collected.

Report Number: 2022_004-01

2022 TASK 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2022). 2022 TASK 4:
New Construction Verifications – Summary of Projects (2022_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
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_004-01)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. 2022 New Construction Verification Projects ............................................................................. 1
3. 2022 Photo Controls Review Projects ......................................................................................... 5

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
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_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 2022. 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 2022, 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 quality
of design through the inclusion of additional design and commissioning recommendations.
2. 2022 NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROJECTS
The UI-IDL completed eight New Construction Verification projects in 2022. 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 2022 were finalized
and paid in 2022. One project resides under the 2016 program, three projects reside under the
2018 program format, and the rest reside under the 2021 program format. The specific
incentives for this program are outlined in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_004-01)
2

Table 1: 2016 New Construction Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning A1 Efficient Air-Cooled AC & Heat Pump Units
A2 Efficient VRF Units
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4
A5
A6
Direct Evaporative Coolers
Evaporative Pre-coolers on Air-cooled
C4
C5
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Heating D1 EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
R2 Floating Suction Controls

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_004-01)
3

Table 2: 2018 New Construction Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning A1 Efficient Air-Cooled AC & Heat Pump Units
A2 Efficient VRF Units
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4
A5 Direct Evaporative Coolers
C4
C5
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Heating D1 EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
R2 Floating Suction Controls

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_004-01)
4

Table 3: 2021 New Construction Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction
L3 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (LLLC)
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
A7
Direct & Indirect Evaporative Coolers
High-Volume Low-Speed Fan
Evaporative Pre-Coolers on Air-cooled
C4
C5
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Heating I1
E1
E2
Efficient Ice Machines
Circulating Generator Block Heaters
High Efficiency Battery Chargers
R2
R3
Automatic High-speed Doors
Evaporative Pre-coolers on Air-cooled

Table 4 summarizes the eight projects and respective qualified incentive measures
which were verified by UI-IDL. For the projects listed, more than 50% were located outside the
capital service area.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2022 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_004-01)
5

Table 4: Project Summary
IPC
Project # Facility Description Location
16-347 Medical (Non-Hospital) Nampa, ID L1, L2 05/19/22
18-507 School – Elementary Nampa, ID C1 07/27/22
18-508 School – Elementary Nampa, ID C1 07/27/22
18-542 Nampa, ID 04/26/22
21-080 Garden City, ID L1, L2
21-149 Boise, ID L1 10/17/22
3. 2022 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS
In 2022, the UI-IDL received zero inquiries regarding the New Construction photo
controls incentive review.

Report Number: 2022_005-05

2022 TASK 5: ENERGY RESOURCE LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 #8112

Agnes, D. (2022). 2022 TASK
5: Energy Resource Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2022_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. 2022 Summary of Loans ........................................................................................................ 14
5. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 19

vii

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
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
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_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).
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.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

2. Marketing
Marketing for the ERL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2022,
as well as on the 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 for 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 has been
distributed at various lectures so firms would have an on-hand reference for the ERL, but
also, has been made available as a pdf for download and viewing on the idlboise.com
website. You can find the catalog here: http://www.idlboise.com/content/erl-catalog-2022
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 assistance or a request for specific tools, all online.
In 2022, the ERL home page had 2,768 visitors. Changes and progress on the ERL
homepage can be found in Appendix B. (http://www.idlboise.com/about-erl)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan
In 2022, sixty-nine new tools were added to the ERL to replace old data logging
models, current transformers, and air quality sensors to fill gaps in tool kits, and add
accessories for kits.
Equipment in the tool loan program typically has a guaranteed calibration period
between 1 and 3 years from the manufacturer. 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 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 exceed 30% or more of the item’s original 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 been 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
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

1. Equipment is cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL cross-checks older
items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2. Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-
calibration or replacement.
Calibration tracking has 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 is maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

4. 2022 Summary of Loans
In 2022, loan requests totaled 18 with 16 loans completed, 2 loans are on-going.
The first quarter had the highest volume of loans at 7 total. Loans were made to 7 different
locations and 6 unique users and 2 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.
Due to Covid-19 and the associated restrictions there was a decrease in loans over
the past year and a half. Continuing into 2023, IDL is devoting resources to market the ERL
to potential users in order to return to normal frequency of use. More details about the ERL
marketing strategy can be found in the 2023 scope of work.
Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for ERL in 2022.
1/27/2022 Garden City ID Student Identify EEMs 3
2/10/2022 Boise ID University 1 7
2/16/2022 Boise ID Student
2/17/2022 Boise ID University 1
3/7/2022 Boise ID Utility 4 2
3/16/2022 Boise ID University 1 20
3/30/2022 Nampa ID Utility 4
5/12/2022 Meridian ID Company 24 Identify EEMs 1
5/26/2022 Boise ID Company 12 Audit 1
7/22/2022 Boise ID Utility 1 Identify EEMs 2
9/1/2022 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 2
9/9/2022 Boise ID Student
9/12/2022 Boise ID Company 24 Identify EEMs 1
9/13/2022 Boise ID University 1 Identify EEMs 2
10/25/2022 Boise ID Utility 1
12/6/2022 Boise ID Company 30
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

12/12/2022 Boise ID University 1 Audit 13
12/12/2022 Boise ID Company 65 Audit 1
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

6
1
1
1
5
2
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1. Preliminary Investigation / Audit /
Study to Identify Energy Efficiency
Measures (EEMs)
3. Post-implementation /
Verification Measures of Particular
EEMs
Loans by Type
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
7
2
5
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
2022
1
3 3
2
1
4
1
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
Total
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

12
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 5 10 15
Boise
Eagle
Meridian
New Meadows
Murtaugh
Grangeville
Nampa
ID
Loans by Location
2022
6
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
0 2 4 6 8
University 1
Company 12
Student
Company 24
Company 65
Company 30
Utility 4
Utility 1
Tool Summary
2022
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor
CO2 Logger
Extech Light Meter
Extech Thermo-Anemometer
FLEX>US Ultrasound Leak Detector
FLIR C2 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR C3 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR E50bx
Fluke 43B Handheld Instrument
Fluke Energy Logger
Fluke Infrared Thermometer
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
HOBO U12-013 Data Logger
HOBO UX100 Thermocouple Logger
Konica Minolta Luminance Meter
Laser Distance Meter
Light Meter w/ Data Logging
MX1104 Data Logger
Occupancy and Light Data Logger - Narrow
Plug Load Data Logger
Power Bank
Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits
Sling Psychrometer
Temperature Sensor
VOC and Temperature Monitor w/ Data Logging, Bapi
Tool Summary
2022
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_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-2022
Integrated Design Lab | Boise
2022 Task 5: - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_005-05)

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

Report Number: 2022_001-06

2022 TASK 6: POWER OVER ETHERNET
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 # 8112

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2022). 2022
TASK 6: Power over Ethernet – Demonstration Project
(2022_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
RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN
THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY
DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE
PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE 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 ..................................................................................................................... 1
3. Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BSUG Building Simulation User’s Group
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IP Internet Protocol
IPC Idaho Power Company
LED Light Emitting Diode
LLLC Luminaire-Level Lighting Controls
PoE Power over Ethernet
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) worked to identify a site in
Idaho Power territory that is installing Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) lighting. PoE can be
configured to work with many low-wattage LEDs and can be addressed by Internet
Protocol (IP) for individual control. The PoE infrastructure also increases safety and
flexibility by using low-wattage cables that do not require an electrician to re-wire. The
IDL intended to function as an independent third party to assess the savings potential of
PoE versus high-voltage LED and LLLC combinations.

2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The IDL worked on a literature review of the technology and how it compares to
conventional lighting. The results were turned into a blog post hosted on the IDL’s
Building Simulation User’s Group (BSUG) website. This is included in the appendix.
The IDL met with several facility managers and reached out to architects,
engineers, and consultants to find a suitable case study site. While one local
management company was open to the idea, it is believed that the out-of-pocket costs
and electrician’s time were a barrier. The implementation project remains unlikely to
move forward without supplemental funding to cover the cost of installation. A new
municipal facility located in Ada County (currently in the design stage) is including PoE
within their bid set. If the bid comes back favorably from the construction management
team, then PoE may be installed at this facility in 2023. The CEO of a regional PoE
company is also looking to enter the Idaho market and will contact the IDL if any
projects come to fruition.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

Since no case study was found in 2022, only 15% of the budget was used to
cover meetings, outreach, and the literature review. If IDL becomes aware of a suitable
project for a case study in the future, the lab will coordinate with Idaho Power on a
potential scope of work.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

3. APPENDIX
PoE Lighting, The Foundation for Smart Buildings
What is PoE Lighting? PoE refers to Power over Ethernet, which is a widely used
technology that most of us are accustomed to. Typically, the applications that use power over
ethernet are VOIP phones, IP cameras, and wireless access points. The general definition of
power over ethernet lighting is lighting systems that are “smart”. While that sounds cool, saying
that my lights have the potential to be smart doesn’t really explain anything. A “smart building”
is a simple way of saying that the building applications are all connected through an IOT
software (Internet of Things), and PoE is a type of hardware that fits into an IOT infrastructure.
What does this mean and how does this make buildings “smart”? Well, let’s jump down the
rabbit hole of PoE Lighting and learn about it.
AC vs DC
To begin, a brief history of AC/DC is necessary. AC stands for alternating current, while
DC stands for direct current. DC was the type of power that was used by Edison. It is current that
runs in one direction, the way power moves in a battery, and doesn’t convert easily into higher or
lower voltages. AC, on the other hand, was used by Tesla and reverses in direction multiple
times per second and is easily converted to higher or lower voltages.

AC Power

(Source: FS Community)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

DC Power

(Source: FS Community)

During the late 1800s, a rivalry between Tesla and Edison took place. Edison had
acquired a patent on DC power and began to discredit the AC technology that Tesla was working
on as too dangerous to use. He most likely knew that AC was a more efficient way to transport
energy but was stuck with his DC patent. In 1893, the Chicago World’s Fair sent out a bid to
determine who would get to power the fair. The power company General Electric, using Edison’s
DC, bid that they could power the fair for $554,000. George Westinghouse, using Tesla’s AC,
bid that he could do it for $399,000 and ultimately got the contract. The attention from the fair
led to Westinghouse, who had licensed Tesla’s AC patent, creating a contract with the Niagara
Falls Power Company to generate power for the city of Buffalo in 1896.
What follows is the use of alternating current to power household appliances like
refrigerators, ovens, and dishwashers. Though DC is more stable and is generally safer to
transport over long distances, typically our power grids operate in AC. Even though it may seem
like AC has the upper hand, much of our new technology uses DC power: electric vehicles,
computers, and LED lights to name a few. But since power grids handle energy in AC form,
converters are needed to transform the AC from the grid into usable DC that powers our
machines. Because of this need of conversion, DC tends to require more infrastructure within a
building. Most rectifiers/converters are 90-95% efficient, but that means there is a loss of power
during the conversion process.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

(Source: Gainesville Industrial Electric)
To transport this energy, we have electrical grids that are made up of power lines that can
be high or low voltage lines depending on location and intended use. The same is true for
distribution power in buildings but at a much smaller scale (I like to think of this a micro
electrical grid). Common methods of distributing power in a building are raceway and
conductors, busways, or cable assemblies. However, in the past decade a new method has
emerged using ethernet cables and has been coined Power over Ethernet or PoE.
Ethernet
Ethernet came about when Robert Metcalfe was asked to create a local network that
would allow a personal workstation to connect with the first laser printer. The solution needed to
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

be able to connect hundreds of computers and run fast enough to keep up with the printer.
Metcalfe ended up using a coaxial cable and termed it the ethernet cable for its lightning-fast
transmission. It was coined after the archaic physics term “luminiferous ether” which described
the medium light traveled through.
In the beginning, ethernet was used within closed local network as a way to carry packets
of information from computer to computer at 3 megabits per second. This one of several
examples of early information technology devices and connecting them via a network by which
using packets of data lead to the standardization of information technology languages. After
many iterations, wire types, and a patent, ethernet became popular commercially and eventually
the standard for data transfer. In 2000, ethernet advanced even more when Cisco developed a
version of ethernet that was able to deliver not only data, but power, to phone handsets. It
mimicked the way a traditional landline operated and could support 48 volts of DC power, thus
allowing one line for a broader range of devices and including a mechanism that protected
devices that were not supported by PoE. Overall, PoE had the superior ability to transfer power,
the bonus of improved safety, and reduced the number of cables needed which cut down on
installation costs. As the commercial markets and industry came to depend on networks of ITDs
to efficiently run their operations security concerns began to rise. PoE offered the market a
method to power devices and deliver data, thereby, allowing for the option to create a closed
network for increased security. Developments to increase the amount of power that could be
carried using PoE facilitated the transition of building security infrastructure, such as, cameras
and door locks, to utilize PoE. Today, ethernet cables can carry 100 megabits of data per second
and can support up to 90 watts.

(Source: Circuit Digest)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

PoE Hubs

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

You may be asking, “How does PoE actually work?” Basically, a piece of equipment
called power sourcing equipment (PSE) supplies DC voltage over ethernet cables to another
connected device that’s called a powered device (PD). This connection allows for devices to be
powered without a local power source or a separate cable for power.

(Source: Vorp Energy)

Lighting and PoE
Now we ask the question: what if a light fixture could be treated like information
technology device? With the ability to deliver power and information over the same wire, would
it be possible to connect and power a light fixture through a network? Before we answer that
question, let’s review how we have traditionally powered lights and where they are today.
Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Edison did not invent the first light bulb. In fact,
many scientists were experimenting with electric light over 70 years before Edison joined the
stage. In 1802 Humphry Davy created light while experimenting with carbon and an electric
battery. Now, this was not anything like the modern bulb and didn’t produce light for very long.
Other inventors dabbled in glowing wires over the next few decades, but the next step in lighting
technology was in 1840 when Warren de la Rue used a vacuum tube to pass electric current
through a platinum wire. While this lasted longer than any previous glowing wire and was
effective, the platinum was expensive, and his design couldn’t be mass produced.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

Then, in the 1870s a working light bulb as we recognize it was developed by Joseph
Swan, a physicist. This model used carbonized paper filaments and an evacuated bulb but had
issues with the vacuum seal and had a short lifetime. In 1874, Henry Woodward and Matthew
Evans patented a model that used a similar design as Swan. Woodward and Evans’ model had
nitrogen filed glass cylinders and different sizes of carbon rods between the electrodes. The two
tried to commercialize their patent but failed, which brings us to the illustrious Edison. The
Woodward and Evans patent was then sold to Edison in 1879. And this is where our
aforementioned discussion of AC versus DC and Edison versus Tesla comes into play. Since the
battle of currents, we have developed a few types of light bulbs including fluorescent,
incandescent, mercury vapor, HID, neon, and most recently LED.

(Source: Home Depot)

LEDs are unique in that they are not technically light bulbs as we know from history.
They are actually semiconductors that emit visible light. LEDs, or a light emitting diode, is a
diode that contains an anode that passes electricity to a cathode, this transfer of current produces
visible light. LEDs behave more like a battery than a traditional light bulb. When considering the
voltage of light bulbs, a typical light bulb requires about 110 volts to operate. Some fluorescent
bulbs are made to be low voltage, only requiring 12-24 volts. LEDs on the other hand, only take
between 1.8 and 3.3 volts, depending on the color and type. Since PoE typically refers to power
transfer in watts, let’s convert bulb voltage to wattage: normal bulbs are anywhere from 40-100
watts, low voltage fluorescent bulbs are about 15 watts, and LEDs are typically only 2-10 watts.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

(Source: ResearchGate)

(Source: Science ABC)

Since they require an extremely low voltage and wattage, LEDs are an ideal candidate for
use in a PoE system, allowing then to be classified as an information technology device for its
applications. We have already established that PoE can support up to 90W of power, meaning
that PoE would be able to power a system of LEDs. We have already touched on how AC and
DC differ, and which type of electronics use which type of power. For normal lighting situations,
multiple wires, transformers, and hardware are needed to convert power from the grid to power
that is used in lighting. When installing or modifying lighting, an electrician is needed because of
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

the intensity of the wiring. This makes it expensive and time consuming to change lighting
design.
PoE infrastructure moves the power conversion and control system upstream to a single
unit which makes it safer to change or redesign without an electrician. This also means that each
lighting fixture would generate less heat, since no conversion is taking place at the fixture itself,
which would allow for a heat sink with a smaller volume. In addition, new materials would be
able to be tested as a heat sink which may have not been suitable for lighting before. Lastly, PoE
infrastructure uses less wiring which results in a cheaper installation, but also has the potential to
make installation easier for electricians which further reduces the cost of installation. The
manufacturing of LEDs has the potential to be more efficient and cost effective, since less
materials are needed for PoE lighting. New features could also be added if LEDs used PoE.
One important hardware component of PoE lighting is LLLC, or Luminaire-Level
Lighting Controls. An LLLC is the ability to have embedded sensor during manufacturing, such
as, occupancy and ambient light sensors, incorporated into each light fixture. The sensors allow
for flexible lighting controls that respond to changing conditions under each fixture. Depending
on how many people are inside a room or how much daylight enters the building, the lighting
levels will conform accordingly. Pairing with the LLLC allows us to extend the network
hardware as well as connect that hardware to our network software for management. More
commonly, networks are connected wirelessly using a hub or gateway which allow the input of
data from users to be transmitted to the hardware for the desired output or the lighting system
responding to users’ commands. Having lighting systems connected with PoE and wireless
gateways allows for the utilization of the security and dependability of a closed network while
simultaneously giving use the potential to expand or contract our network.
Ultimately, if a building’s lighting system is connected to PoE, the lights are deployed in
a grid (or microgrid), for commercial applications, throughout the building and each fixture
becomes capable of sending and receiving data. This is beneficial since lights are unique in that
they are in every building regardless of its age, use, or location. Using commercial lighting as a
grid for a central network for buildings would allow for a PoE system that could act as a data
highway or backbone for network infrastructure for all the control systems in the building. If this
backbone were put in place, it would create a network throughout the entire building, which
would mean that other control systems could utilize or be controlled with it. This is what would
be called a “smart” environment monitoring system which is where the term “smart building”
comes from.
There are a couple types of systems that are used to monitor a building’s network. The
two main categories of systems are passive and active environment monitoring systems. A
passive system looks at the performance of the network as a whole and pulls data from the
history of network use. An active system analyzes the network in real time and generates data
that determines the current performance.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

Some notable buildings that currently use PoE lighting are DPR Construction in San
Francisco, The Edge in Amsterdam, and the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. DPR Construction is the first
certified Net Zero Building in San Francisco and includes PoE lighting as one of its green
features. The Edge has been called the most intelligent building in the world and is ranked one of
the greenest buildings as well. Almost all systems in the building are connected to the grid and it
utilizes ethernet as much as possible. The LED lighting systems in this building are one of the
highlights that allow it to use as little energy as possible and in the most efficient way. And
finally, the Burj Khalifa’s entire façade is lined with LED lights that are programed and
controlled by PoE systems. This building uses ethernet in a way that not only shows off current
lighting technology to the people inside the building, but to the entire city as well.
As we have seen, power over ethernet lighting is utilized in high performing and efficient
buildings. But where will we see this technology used first in the US? Most likely we will see it
in street grids and traffic lights. The grid networking and lighting used along streets is well suited
for a transition to PoE. Some other suitable situations would be school campuses, warehouses,
box retails centers, grocery stores, commercial offices, or manufacturing plants. These building
types would save lots of energy and would be easily programmable since they all operate on
rigid time schedules. Introducing a cohesive PoE lighting system would also provide a network
that would act as a backbone for any future system updates. Power over ethernet lighting could
be used as an introduction for buildings to transition to a more efficient and effective way to use
energy.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2022 Task 6: Power over Ethernet- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #2022_001-06)

Sources
https://www.energy.gov/articles/war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power
https://community.fs.com/blog/data-center-power-what-are-ac-and-dc-power-in-data-
centers.html
http://ffden-
2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2017/Jacalyn_Morgan/1775941155590410311e3ae/applicati
ons-of-ac.html
https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/the-birth-and-rise-of-ethernet-a-history-1706.html
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/enterprise-networks/what-is-power-over-ethernet.html
https://www.nvtphybridge.com/power-over-ethernet/
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/enterprise-networks/what-is-poe-lighting.html#~q-a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlXetcO7B38&list=PLURsSHj3SumC2qZIFDZU4xXGNfPxNVVCw&ind
ex=5&ab_channel=UIIDLChannel
https://kw-engineering.com/pros-cons-power-ethernet-lighting-dc-microgrids/
https://cc-techgroup.com/power-over-ethernet-poe-lighting/
https://www.traditionalbuilding.com/product-report/history-
lighting#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201800s%2C%20the,a%20cylinder%20of%20calcium%20oxide.
https://www.bulbs.com/learning/history.aspx
https://www.wiprolighting.com/blog/how-does-power-over-ethernet-poe-lighting-
work#:~:text=The%20PSE%20(power%20sourcing%20equipment,to%20the%20network%20connected%
20devices.
https://lightingcontrolsassociation.org/2022/06/15/introduction-to-luminaire-level-lighting-controls/

Report Number: 2022_007-01

2022 TASK 7: LLLC WORKSHOP
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 #8112

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2022). 2022 TASK 7:
LLLC Workshop – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (2022_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 RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE 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. 2022 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
2022 Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 4
2022 Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
Session 1: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training – Trial (9/30/22) ................................. 6
Session 2: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training (10/05/22) .......................................... 6
5. Educational Materials ................................................................................................................. 8
6. Case Study/Testimonial LLLC ...................................................................................................... 8
7. Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 9
Appendix A: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training Evaluations ..................................... 9

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
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
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 IDL has installed Luminaire Level Lighting Controls (LLLC’s) in our open office area. These can be configured into different
daylighting and occupancy zones. The UI-IDL developed a demonstration workshop for lighting designers and installers. The lab
hosted designers and installers for public lectures to view and work with the lighting controls. The IDL provided attendees with
impartial information about the performance of the products and how to configure the lighting controls effectively.
The 2022 Idaho Power scope of work for the LLLC Training task included planning, organizing and hosting one or two
meetings, recording attendance and evaluations, production of education materials including a one-page summary and more
detailed sizing report, and a one-page case study/testimonial based on their experiences with LLLC.
3. 2022 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2022, two training sessions were coordinated and hosted. Sessions are summarized below with details in the following
sections.
Table 1: Overall Summary of Sessions
Presenter
Company
RSVPs Attendees
Date Title Presenter In-person In-person
9/30 Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training – Trial Dylan Agnes IDL 4 4
15 14
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2022 Attendance

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 3 Electrician: 0
Engineer: 3 Contractor: 0
Mech. Engineer: 0 Other: 8
Elec. Engineer: 0 None Specified: 0
Total (In-Person):
Other:

10
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training - Trial
Number of Attendees
Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown
22%
21%
57%
Architect Engineer Other
100%
0%
In Person Online
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2022 Evaluations

Figure 4: Average Evaluation for 10/05 Training session

4.6 4.8 4.6 4.8 5.0 4.8
3.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
In general today's
presentation was
Rate organization Rate clarity Rate opportunity for
questions
Rate instructor's
knowledge of subject
matter
Rate devlivery of
presentation
The content of the
presentation was
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
4. SESSION SUMMARIES
Session 1: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training – Trial (9/30/22)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training
Date: 09/30/22
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
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 the 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.
Presenter: Dylan Agnes

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):

*If 'Other' was noted: Facility Manager, Utility Program Specialist

Session 2: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training (10/05/22)
Title: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training
Date: 10/05/22
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case-by-case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
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 the 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.
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance:

Architect: 3 Contractor: Engineer : Electrician:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 7
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person):

*If 'Other' was noted: Facilities Manager, Industry Representative, Code Specialist

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
5. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
The IDL developed a forty page booklet describing Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
with the intent of explaining the upcoming technology to building owners or operators as well
as professionals in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry. The booklet covers
a technology overview, potential impact to the industry, energy and cost, best practices or use,
and common lighting terminology. The format of the booklet was organized so that a handful of
topics, such as, Luminaire Level Lighting Controls, Network Lighting Controls, Network
Topography, and Changing the Game are ‘spreads’. Spreads, in the graphic design sense, refers
to a set of pages, usually two, to be viewed together. Therefore, each of these sections can be
pulled from the booklet and used separately for marketing or educational purposes.
Participants in the LLLC Training were provided a copy of the LLLC Technology booklet, a
workbook, and two product catalogs of the LLLCs the IDL has installed at our offices (Cooper
Lighting Solutions). Moving forward the LLLC Technology booklet is available upon request and
has not been added to the IDL’s website.
6. CASE STUDY/TESTIMONIAL LLLC
As of 12/31/22 there have been no documented projects that have utilized the New
Construction and Major Renovation Incentive Program L3 incentive. The L3 incentive
specifically deals with LLLC and pulling projects from this category would ensure that projects
are within Idaho Power territory. However, the IDL was able to potentially find a candidate
through the training session given on the 5th of October.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training Evaluations
Summaries of evaluations for each of the two sessions are recorded below. It should be
noted that the first session was conducted as a trial run for Idaho Power and a property
management firm. Feedback for that session was documented in an informal manner and
implemented during the session or immediately following the conclusion of the session.
Session 1 (09/30/22): Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training – Trial
Presentation Info:
Date: 09/30/22
Location: Idaho Water Center – Boise, ID
Presenters: Dylan Agnes – IDL
Attendance:
4

Evaluations: No evaluations were collected. Scale
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Session 2 (10/05/22): Luminaire Level Lighting Controls & Training
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/27/2022
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
Location: Idaho Water Center – Boise, ID
Presenter: Dylan Agnes – IDL
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 7
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 10

*If 'Other' was noted: Facilities Manager, Code Specialist, Industry Representative

Evaluations: Scale
In general, today's presentation was: 4.6 1 Not Useful - 5 Very Useful
4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.6 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
5.0 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
4.8 1 Needs Improvement - 5 Excellent
3.6
Comments:
Attendee Suggested Improvements for the Instructor:
•
• None Needed
• Good Presentation, Possibly slow down a bit
• Tad bit monotone, get excited!
What attendees found most valuable:
Explanation on occupancy and vacancy settings
• System capability
• Opportunity for future trainings
• I learned more about smart buildings and integration of lighting systems
• New tech, up and coming systems
Professional Associations of Which Attendees are Members:
AIA, BOC, NCQLP, IES

Report Number: 2022_003-01

2022 TASK 8: DIGITAL DESIGN TOOLS
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2022

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 #V

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2022). 2022 TASK 8:
Digital Design Tools – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(2022_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 ...................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
3. Design Tools ................................................................................................................................ 4
2022 Summary of Work .............................................................................................................. 5
2022 New Design Tools ............................................................................................................... 5
Covid Impact Modeling ............................................................................................................ 5
4. Design Tool Summaries ............................................................................................................... 6
CBECS Data Visualization Infographics ........................................................................................ 6
CBECS Micro Master v2 ............................................................................................................... 7
Weather Normalization ............................................................................................................... 7
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator ............................................................................................... 8
LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script ........................................................................... 8
Infiltration Equations & Conversions .......................................................................................... 9
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets ........................................................................ 10
Climate Design Resources – 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets ..................................................... 10
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST) ................................................................................. 12
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 12
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits ..................................................................................... 13
Daylight Pattern Guide .............................................................................................................. 14
5. Design Tools Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 14
CBECS Data Visualization Infographics ...................................................................................... 14
CBECS Micro Master v2 ............................................................................................................. 15
Weather Normalization ............................................................................................................. 15
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator ............................................................................................. 15
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script......................................................................... 15
Infiltration Equations & Conversions ........................................................................................ 15
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool ................................................................................ 15
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets ................................................... 15
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST) ................................................................................. 15
Construction Insulation Value Calculator.................................................................................. 15
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits ..................................................................................... 16
Daylight Pattern Guide .............................................................................................................. 16
6. Design Tools Statistics ............................................................................................................... 16
7. Future Work & Design Tools ..................................................................................................... 16
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools ............................................................................ 16
Indoor Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 17

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
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 4
2. INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the Integrated Design Lab has developed several digital design tools to
assist local firms. These include ventilation calculators, daylighting methodologies, thermal
envelope calculators, and climate visualization assistants. These tools have been collected and
hosted on the IDL website in 2021 but some require updating. IDL is working to update these
tools to the latest design temperatures (which have increased over time) and link to other tools
available to designers so that the IDL website can serve as a one-stop resource for local
engineers and architects for early design considerations.
3. DESIGN TOOLS
In 2022, twelve design tools were available for use and download. The Design Tools are
summarized below.
Table 1: Design Tools
High

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2022 Summary of Work
Design tools were assigned a priority during the initial proposal of the task. A design
tool’s priority determines the probability of receiving an update for the current year. In the
future, a design tool’s priority level will be assessed in the kick-off meeting for the project task.
For 2022, high priority was assigned to two design tool: CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
and CBECS Micro Master v2. Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) 2018
data was expected to be released in 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has continually
delayed the release of data from the study. An update in August 2022 indicated that the
complete study, including micro data, would be released to the public in the fourth quarter of
2022. With the highest priority given to the CBECS design tools it was agreed that the IDL would
begin work on medium-high priority tools but reserve any remaining hours in case CBECS data
would be released in 2022. Therefore, the majority of work conducted for this task has
occurred in late November and will continue until the end of December. As of 12/14/22, we
have downloaded CBECS 2018 data and are working on parsing out the data so it can be
formatted for analysis as well as visualization. This will continue until the end of December with
the intent of having as much data as possible be prepared for visualization work starting next
year, 2023.
2022 New Design Tools
Covid Impact Modeling
Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
(UI-IDL) developed a series of infographics to communicate how COVID-19 has brought the
issue of indoor air quality to the forefront of building science. Virus mitigation strategies range
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
in effectiveness, efficiency, and costs depending on the building type, use types, and local
climate. Using Open Studio and Energy+, the IDL examined the energy and cost impacts of six
different mitigation strategies for commercial buildings in the Treasure Valley.
• HEPA Induct
• HEPA Portable
• MERV
• NPBI
• Outdoor Air
• UVGI Induct
• UVGI Upper Room
4. DESIGN TOOL SUMMARIES
CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
Priority: High
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate how four different building types consume
energy on both a regional and national level. The data used to create them has been gathered from The
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), which is a national-level sample survey of
commercial buildings and their energy suppliers conducted quadrennially by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). The survey collects key benchmark information on U.S. commercial buildings, their
characteristics, and how they consume energy. It is used by private and public stakeholders to track
industry progress and gain a high-level understanding of how similar buildings compare and inform
policy decisions. Architects and engineers can also use this information for goal setting and prioritizing
energy efficiency measures within the integrated design process for high performance projects. These
infographics make detailed consumption data per building type easily accessible to design teams
without having to filter the CBECS database themselves. Information from CBECS is reported on the
EIA’s website in the form of summary tables, which provide tabular breakdowns of high-level energy
consumption statistics based upon general building characteristics. The information is also available as
public use microdata spreadsheets that can be downloaded, filtered, and organized with much more
flexibility than the summary tables. These spreadsheets contain much more detailed information from
the building characteristics survey in its entirety and served as the origin of information for this series of
infographics.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
Currently, there are five double-sided 11x17" infographics. The first is an introduction to the project and
the CBECS database. The next four delve specifically into the office, retail, education and lodging
building type.
Last updated: 2021

CBECS Micro Master v2
Priority: High
Link: N/A
Description: This file contains a good portion of the CBECS microdata, which can be filtered for
benchmarking and goal setting functions.
Last updated: 2021
Weather Normalization
Priority: Medium-High
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/weather-normalization
Description: This spread sheet was created in order to aid with the processing and analysis of building
energy usage. In order to operate this spread sheet you will need the following bills for each month in
the period you wish to analyze:
• Natural Gas
• Electricity
• Geothermal (if applicable)

In addition, weather data for the location of project is needed. This information can be obtained from
the provided link with the instructions below.
• NOAA National Weather Service
• Select the nearest data center.
• Go to the NOWData Tab and refine the location if needed.
• Under the "Product" select "Monthly Summarized Data".
• Input the desired range of years.
• Set the "variable" drop down to either CDD or HDD.
• Click go and copy data to the Data Entry tab of this file.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
The sheet will automatically calculate actual and expected energy usage and create graphs that can be
found in the "Output Figures" tab. More detailed analysis can be found in the "Calculated Values" and
"Regression Visualization" tabs.
Last updated: 2021
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Priority: Medium-High
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/energyplus-fan-energy-calculator
Description: This spreadsheet was created in order to aid with determining the fan inputs into
EnergyPlus via equations from ASHRARE 90.1 Appendix G (for baseline systems) and fan specifications
(for proposed systems). Three key inputs are needed in EnergyPlus:
• Supply Fan Total Efficiency
• Supply Fan Delta Pressure {Pa}
• Supply Fan Motor Efficiency

In order to calculate these inputs, this spreadsheet will lead you through a series of steps, depending on
the system type required for your building type. The tabs of this spreadsheet are as follows:
• Introduction
• Systems 1 & 2
• Systems 3 & 4
• Systems 5 - 8
• Proposed System
• Resources

Colored cells signify inputs, outputs, links, and instructive text.
Last updated: 2021

LM-83 Three-Phase Daylight Simulation Script
Priority: Medium-High
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/lm-83-12-three-phase-daylight-simulation-script
Description: Annual simulation of dynamic/complex fenestration systems under LM-83 guidelines. This
script will generate its own folder structure beyond the starting directories required, which are outlined
below.
Version 1.2.0 (August 25, 2017)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
Author: Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy (Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory University of Oregon;
Integrated Design Lab University of Idaho) This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit GPL v.3
In plain English: you are free to use this script, distribute it, make changes to it, as long as (1) you
acknowledge Alen Mahic, Ery Djunaedy and the Integrated Design Lab as the original authors, and (2)
you acknowledge that the script is provided as-is with absolutely no warranty, and that the authors and
the University of Idaho are not liable to anything that happens or does not happen in relation to the use
of this script.
Radiance 5.0+ is required.
Last updated: 2022

Infiltration Equations & Conversions
Priority: Medium
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/infiltration-equations-conversions-0
Description: A key factor in building heat gain and loss may be the infiltration rate, or the rate at which
outdoor air is exchanged with conditioned interior air through the envelope. This spreadsheet tool
outlines a set of simplified equations aimed at converting typical, real world infiltration measurements
into metrics that can be input into EnergyPlus. In using methods outlined in the document Infiltration
Modeling Guidelines for Commercial Building Energy Analysis by the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, we were able to convert common metrics of I75 and ACH50, into ones that could be
conveniently input into an Energy Plus Model (Idesign and ACHnat).
NOTE: At this time, this calculation tool does not take into account infiltration from stack pressure, only
horizontal wind pressure.
Key Definitions
• ACH50-The number of complete air changes that occur within an hour when the building is
pressurized at 50 Pascals. This metric is usually used in residential infiltration measurement.
• ACHnat-The number of natural air changes that occur with an hour when the building is
naturally pressurized.
• I75- The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior exposed
surface area when the building is pressurized at 75 Pascals. This metric is more commonly used
in commercial infiltration measurement.
• Idesign- The infiltration flow rate of air in cubic feet per minute per square foot of exterior
exposed surface area when the building is naturally pressurized.

Spreadsheets
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
• Spreadsheets 1 and 2 can be used to convert I75 into Idesign. Spreadsheet "1. I75 to Idesign
Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "2. I75 to Idesign Calculations," is
an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides an output that can be
used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 3 and 4 can be used to convert ACH50 into ACHnat. As in spreadsheets 1-2, "3.
ACH50 to ACHnat Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "4. ACH50 to
ACHnat Calculations," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output that can be used in EnergyPlus.
• Spreadsheets 5 and 6 are for comparing ACH50 into Idesign metrics. As in spreadsheets 1-4, "5.
Compare ACH and I Text," explains the method and equations for the conversion. "6. Compare
ACH to I Calculation," is an interactive spreadsheet that takes your project's input and provides
an output of comparisons between the different metrics.
• Spreadsheet 7 is a provides a reverse calculation. "7. Reverse Calcs" allows you to convert from
an EnergyPlus input into I75.
• Spreadsheet 8 is a reference tab. "8. Appendix" contains useful reference charts for
spreadsheets 1-7.

Last updated: 2021

The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool Sets
Priority: Medium
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/climate-responsive-design-web-tool
Description: The Climate Responsive Design web tool is designed to graphically illustrate the feasibility
and potential energy benefits of several climate responsive design strategies. The tool is intended to
help designers and owners make correct early decisions that will result in buildings that are more energy
efficient. The output of the tool are graphic data plots designed to illustrate not only conventional
climate data, such as temperature and relative humidity, but also more complex interactions of these
raw weather data with building specific user input data and a rule set for various energy efficient design
strategies.
The Climate Responsive Design web tool requires viewing in Firefox internet browser.
Last updated: 2021
Climate Design Resources – 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets
Priority: Medium
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/ui-idl-climate-design-resources-1st-2nd-generation-tool-sets
Description: The Idaho Power Company funded the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) to
produce a series of climate design resources to help assist in the conceptual and early design of passive
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
strategies. Through their support, the UI-IDL has developed two generations of spreadsheet calculators
that are capable of analyzing building loads and energy consumption impacts of a range of different
design strategies over three reference cities. You can download the tools and both the 1st and 2nd
generation research reports at the bottom of this webpage. The reports provide insight into the
methodology of the research used to develop the tools as well as information on how to use them most
effectively. Currently, there are seven different calculation spreadsheets that span across two different
generations of tool development:
FIRST GENERATION TOOLS
• Heat Gain Calculations
• Cross Ventilation
• Stack Ventilation
• Night Ventilation Thermal Mass

SECOND GENERATION TOOLS
• Balance Point Calculation
• Passive Solar
• Earth Tube

Each spreadsheet contains multiple tabs and a step-by-step process that directs the user to define the
critical baseline and performance parameters of the building. These factors are linked to pre-defined
equations within the spreadsheet that automatically provide the peak cooling loads, cooling capacities,
and describe other critical design criteria. Charts, line graphs, and other forms of graphic information
also automatically populate the workspace to provide rich visual feedback to the user. The spreadsheets
also contain a reference tab that consolidates a myriad of textbook, code, and other sources needed to
complete the step-by-step instructions. Additionally, a variety of weather data, including hourly
information from TMY weather files, are embedded into the calculations based upon three different
reference cities within the Idaho Power Company service territory. Once each tab is filled out, the
results pages of the spreadsheets contains all of the important outputs needed to evaluate how much
the passive design measure can contribute to the peak loads or energy savings of the building. Changes
to the building parameters are instantaneous, making the Climate Tools Package an ideal instrument
used to explore different design iterations and how they might facilitate passive design strategies.
Goals
The ultimate goal of the Climate Tools Package is to reduce the loads and energy consumption of a
building through passive design measures. This happens mainly by embedding, early in the design
process, the analysis of the performance capabilities of different passive cooling and heating strategies.
Once a performance capacity is calculated and compared against peak loads of a building, a qualitative
decision can be made whether or not to pursue more detailed analysis. If certain passive strategies are
proven to meet some or all of the peak load, this may warrant further development. Potential next steps
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
could involve more advanced analysis such as building simulation to quantify annual energy savings
based on actual weather data.
Last updated: 2021
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
Priority: Medium
Link: http://www.idlboise.com/content/thermal-energy-savings-tabulator-test
Description: This tool aims to provide designers, engineers, and manufacturers a quick and easy way to
calculate energy savings from the application of different heat pump HVAC technologies early in the
design process. Specifically, the tool supports analysis of air-source heat pumps (ASHP), water-source
heat pumps (WSHP), and variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems. The spreadsheet was developed by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) with funding from Idaho Power Company. To learn
more about the development of the tool, please visit the UI-IDL’s website here - idlboise.com.
The tool provides the means for detailed input of a custom building, geometry, and program, while
using pre-cooked, whole-building simulations to aid in HVAC energy calculations. The tool always
compares a baseline condition to a proposed condition. The baseline condition can represent a new
construction code baseline, or could be used to define an existing building.
The spreadsheets contain color coded cells that represent different functionalities. All cells, except for
those that require user input, are locked to avoid confusion. However, the cells can be unlocked without
a password for custom manipulation or for further insight into equations used for calculations. See
below for the various cell's color-coded instructions and their specific descriptions:
Last updated: 2021

Construction Insulation Value Calculator
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/construction-insulation-value-calculator
Description: This spreadsheet is designed to calculate insulation values of individual material layers and
whole constructions of EnergyPlus objects.
Last updated: 2021

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/sustainable-design-practice-benefits
Description: Sponsored by the Idaho Power Company, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-
IDL) developed this series of infographics to communicate sustainable design & practice Benefits of five
different building types for their bottom line impact on efficiency for each building type. Architects and
engineers can also use this information to make early design decisions with compelling numbers for
additional non-energy benefits of energy efficient design. Currently, there are five printable, single-sided
8.5X11" infographics describing specific benefits and strategies for Grocery, Hotel, Multi-family Housing,
Office, and Retail building types.
EXPECTED BENEFITS
• Broadening the scope of sustainable design effectiveness beyond simple utility cost payback
gives a more accurate picture of the financial benefits available through sustainable design
• Strategies for specific occupancy types highlight the solutions that are most effective and easiest
to achieve for each unique set of needs. Efficiency tips for additional building types can be found
at Idahopower.com/business
• Better information during the design phase means a more accurate prediction of a building’s
performance, avoiding costly changes down the road
• Readily available and easily understandable information means increased participation in
efficiency programs by designers, employees, and users of a space
• Energy strategies that go beyond building design and highlight savings opportunities in day to
day operation mean greater energy savings with minimal cost
• Sustainable design and responsible energy consumption can increase a user’s comfort and
appreciation, leading to more positive user experiences and an increase in community support
and interaction
• Power companies offer financial incentives to help offset the costs of implementing sustainable
design strategies. Available for new construction, retrofits, custom projects, and flex peak
programs, Idaho Power helps to make it more affordable than ever to incorporate sustainable
and energy-efficient design decisions into your project. Additional information on Idaho Power
incentive programs can be found at Idahopower.com/business
BOTTOM LINE
Energy and cost savings attributed to efficiency measures are well documented. However, with
additional opportunities to increase comfort, efficiency, community involvement, and customer
satisfaction, sustainable design and practice could have an impact on your bottom line far beyond
reduced utility bills.
Last updated: 2021

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
Daylight Pattern Guide
Priority: Low
Link: http://idlboise.com/content/cbecs-data-visualization-infographics
Description: The Daylighting Pattern Guide is the newest offering in the Advanced Buildings suite of
tools and resources to help design teams create high performance commercial buildings. This no-cost,
interactive design tool uses a combination of real-world built examples and advanced simulation to set
the stage for substantial reductions in lighting power consumption and overall building energy use. It
was developed through a partnership between New Buildings Institute (NBI), University of Idaho and
University of Washington.
High quality daylighting design has the potential to increase user satisfaction and productivity and save
substantial energy. However, successfully designing daylighting into buildings in a manner that supports
high ratings of visual comfort while also saving energy can be a complex and challenging process.
The Daylighting Pattern Guide presents 19 prime examples of well-designed daylit spaces around the
United States. Each project was photographed, physically measured and simulated using the Radiance
simulation tool. Sensitivity analysis of key design variables was conducted on each project to
demonstrate whether the outcome was optimized and to illustrate the impact of multiple ‘alternate
design decisions’ on the daylighting performance.
Key daylight patterns, or variables including orientation, glazing layout, area, shading strategies,
furniture layout, ceiling height, that contribute to the success or failure of a daylighting design were also
identified. This information allows users to differentiate between good built examples of daylit space,
the information generated by design analysis tools, and the ‘rule of thumb’ guidelines that designers
commonly apply.
Project types included in analysis are offices, schools, libraries, laboratories, museums, industrial
facilities, and recreational facilities across a diverse set of regional climates.
Last updated: 2021

5. DESIGN TOOLS MAINTENANCE
CBECS Data Visualization Infographics
None to date.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
CBECS Micro Master v2
None to date.
Weather Normalization
Reviewed, cataloged, and ready for updates.
EnergyPlus Fan Energy Calculator
Reviewed, cataloged, and ready for updates.
LM-83 Three-phase Daylight Simulation Script
Reviewed, cataloged, and no updates needed.
Infiltration Equations & Conversions
None to date.
The Climate Responsive Design Web Tool
None to date.
Climate Design Resources - 1st & 2nd Generation Tool Sets
None to date.
Thermal Energy Savings Tabulator (TEST)
None to date.
Construction Insulation Value Calculator
None to date.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
Sustainable Design & Practice Benefits
None to date.
Daylight Pattern Guide
None to date.
6. DESIGN TOOLS STATISTICS
We saw a total of 2,812 visits to the home/landing page for the digital design tools
(http://www.idlboise.com/content/design-tools). The table below shows the number of visits
to a design tools page.
Priority Name Page Visits
High

7. FUTURE WORK & DESIGN TOOLS
Developing Guides/How-to for Design Tools
While most design tools include an introduction or instructions to assist users with using
the tool we don’t have any examples or tutorials they can reference. An example or tutorials
would include using the tool, when to use the tool, and when not to use the tool.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
Indoor Air Quality
Energy efficient indoor air quality tool that utilizes data and research accumulated
through the 2021 IAQ task. This tool will have drop- down menus for baseline and proposed
methods along with manual entry fields as needed to reasonably estimate kWh/yr usage and
costs for the most popular configurations. The tool will utilize current IPC rate schedules to
provide potential bill savings and payback years.
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 201
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2022 Flex Peak Non-Participant Survey Results Commercial/ Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 Flex Peak Participant Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 Idaho Power WAQC Customers Program
Survey
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 Idaho Power Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 Peak Rewards Non-Participant Survey Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 Peak Rewards Participant Survey Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 Retrofits Program Survey Results Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 SBDI Non-Respondent Follow Up Survey
Results
Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2022 SBDI Program Customer Satisfaction
Survey Reponses
Commercial/Industrial DNV DNV Survey
2022 Shade Tree Program Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 202 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

Answer Percent Response
24.00%6
8.00%2
16.00%4
8.00%2
44.00%11
Total 25
Answer Percent Response
Food manufacturing 18.52%5
Grocery 0.00%0
Office - Large 7.41%2
Office - Small 14.81%4
Retail 3.70%1
School/University 14.81%4
Warehouse 11.11%3
Water/Wastewater 3.70%1
Other (please specify)25.93%7
Total 27
Answer Percent Response
Fixed incentive too small 3.70%1
Variable incentive too small 0.00%0
Wasn't beneficial this year 3.70%1
Events too late in the day 3.70%1
Too many events in the season 3.70%1
Events too close together 0.00%0
Negative impact to the business 29.63%8
Did not know about the program 51.85%14
Other (please specify)3.70%1
Total 27
Other (please specify)
Which best describes your reason for not participating in the Flex Peak program?(Check all that apply)
What industry best describes your company?(If your company has multiple offices/locations, check
all that apply.)
2022 Flex Peak Rewards Non Participant
Survey Results
Facilities Director/Manager/Supervisor
Maintenance Director/Manager/Supervisor
Operations Director/Manager/Supervisor
Plant Director/Manager/Supervisor
What is your role at your company?
Answer Percent Response
Very familiar 0.00%0
Moderately familiar 8.00%2
Somewhat familiar 12.00%3
Slightly familiar 16.00%4
Not familiar at all 64.00%16
Total 25
Answer Percent Response
Very satisfied 0.00%0
Somewhat satisfied 0.00%0
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 100.00%5
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 5
Answer Percent Response
Very satisfied 0.00%0
Somewhat satisfied 0.00%0
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 100.00%5
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 5
Answer Percent Response
Very satisfied 0.00%0
Somewhat satisfied 0.00%0
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 100.00%5
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 5
Answer Percent Response
Very satisfied 0.00%0
Somewhat satisfied 0.00%0
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 100.00%5
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 5
How familiar are you with the Flex Peak program's incentive payment structure?
How satisfied are you with the following components in the Flex Peak program incentive payment structure?
Incentive adjustment of $2/kW per hour of nomination not met during an event
Actual load reduction calculation during an event
Weekly fixed incentive of $3.25/kW nominated
Variable payment after the 4th event of $0.20/kWh
Answer Percent Response
Very likely 12.00%3
Somewhat likely 20.00%5
Neither likely nor unlikely 28.00%7
Somewhat unlikely 0.00%0
Not likely at all 40.00%10
Total 25
Answer Percent Response
Very likely 12.00%3
Somewhat likely 12.00%3
Neither likely nor unlikely 36.00%9
Somewhat unlikely 0.00%0
Not likely at all 40.00%10
Total 25
Answer Percent Response
Very likely 12.00%3
Somewhat likely 4.00%1
Neither likely nor unlikely 32.00%8
Somewhat unlikely 12.00%3
Not likely at all 40.00%10
Total 25
Answer Percent Response
Very likely 12.00%3
Somewhat likely 4.00%1
Neither likely nor unlikely 32.00%8
Somewhat unlikely 12.00%3
Not likely at all 40.00%10
Total 25
Answer Percent Response
Very likely 12.00%3
Somewhat likely 4.00%1
Neither likely nor unlikely 44.00%11
Somewhat unlikely 0.00%0
Not likely at all 40.00%10
Total 25
Maximum 2 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 50% lower
Maximum 3 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 25% lower
With current program parameters and incentive levels
Beyond the 2023 season, Idaho Power is exploring providing additional participation and incentive options for
participants. How likely are you to enroll facilities in the Flex Peak program under the following hypothetical
scenario options:
Maximum 1 event per calendar week with incentives approximately 75% lower
Maximum 1 event within a 7-day consecutive period with incentives approximately 80% lower
Answer Percent Response
Yes, I am the primary contact for the program.72.73%24
No, but I receive event notifications for the program.27.27%9
33
Percent Response
14.71%5
0.00%0
2.94%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
14.71%5
11.76%4
23.53%8
32.35%11
Total 34
Percent Response
27.27%9
54.55%18
9.09%3
6.06%2
3.03%1
Total 33
Percent Response
65.63%21
25.00%8
6.25%2
3.13%1
0.00%0
Total 32
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
What industry best describes the facility enrolled in the Flex Peak program?(If you have multiple facilities
enrolled in the program, check all that apply.)
Grocery
Office - Large
Office - Small
Retail
School/University
Warehouse
Water/Wastewater
Other (please specify)
What is the main reason you chose to participate in the Flex Peak program?
How satisfied were you with the following aspects in the Flex Peak program?
Want to help reduce overall electrical usage on hot summer days
Want to earn an incentive for providing demand reduction
Seems like the right thing to do
Need to meet a company sustainability initiative
Other (Please Specify)
Enrollment process
Answer
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Answer
2022 Flex Peak Rewards Participant Survey
Are you the primary contact for your company for the Flex Peak program?
Total
Answer
Food manufacturing
Percent Response
Very satisfied 48.48%16
Somewhat satisfied 39.39%13
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3.03%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 3.03%1
Very dissatisfied 6.06%2
Total 33
Percent Response
Very satisfied 57.58%19
Somewhat satisfied 36.36%12
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3.03%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 3.03%1
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 33
Percent Response
Very satisfied 63.64%21
Somewhat satisfied 24.24%8
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 9.09%3
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 3.03%1
Total 33
Percent Response
Very satisfied 59.38%19
Somewhat satisfied 25.00%8
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 12.50%4
Somewhat dissatisfied 3.13%1
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 32
Percent Response
Very satisfied 30.30%10
Somewhat satisfied 21.21%7
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 39.39%13
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.09%3
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 33
Timeliness of receiving the incentive payment/bill credits
Event notification process
Program support from Idaho Power
How satisfied were you with the following components in the Flex Peak program's incentive payment
structure?
Incentive adjustment of $2/kW per hour of nomination not met during an event
Answer
Answer
Post event performance data
Answer
Answer
Answer
Percent Response
Very satisfied 30.30%10
Somewhat satisfied 33.33%11
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 36.36%12
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 33
Percent Response
Very satisfied 30.30%10
Somewhat satisfied 27.27%9
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 36.36%12
Somewhat dissatisfied 6.06%2
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 33
Percent Response
Very satisfied 27.27%9
Somewhat satisfied 42.42%14
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 21.21%7
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.09%3
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 33
Tuesday, July 26
Percent Response
Very easy 27.27%9
Somewhat easy 15.15%5
Neither easy nor difficult 27.27%9
Somewhat difficult 21.21%7
Very difficult 9.09%3
Total 33
Thursday, July 28
Percent Response
Very easy 27.27%9
Somewhat easy 18.18%6
Neither easy nor difficult 27.27%9
Somewhat difficult 18.18%6
Very difficult 9.09%3
Total 33
Answer
Variable payment after the 4th event of $0.20/kWh
Actual load reduction calculation during an event
Weekly fixed incentive of $3.25/kW nominated
How easy was it for your facility to meet its weekly nomination for each event this season?
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Monday, August 8
Percent Response
Very easy 27.27%9
Somewhat easy 15.15%5
Neither easy nor difficult 21.21%7
Somewhat difficult 24.24%8
Very difficult 12.12%4
Total 33
Wednesday, August 17
Percent Response
Very easy 24.24%8
Somewhat easy 18.18%6
Neither easy nor difficult 30.30%10
Somewhat difficult 21.21%7
Very difficult 6.06%2
Total 33
Wednesday, August 31
Percent Response
Very easy 21.21%7
Somewhat easy 21.21%7
Neither easy nor difficult 30.30%10
Somewhat difficult 21.21%7
Very difficult 6.06%2
Total 33
Friday, September 2
Percent Response
Very easy 21.21%7
Somewhat easy 18.18%6
Neither easy nor difficult 27.27%9
Somewhat difficult 21.21%7
Very difficult 12.12%4
Total 33
Tuesday, September 6
Percent Response
Very easy 21.21%7
Somewhat easy 18.18%6
Neither easy nor difficult 33.33%11
Somewhat difficult 15.15%5
Very difficult 12.12%4
Total 33
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Percent Response
Shut off lights 3.03%1
Adjust HVAC system 24.24%8
Shut down operations 39.39%13
Other (please specify)33.33%11
Total 33
Percent Response
Individual(s) manually adjust specific system 51.52%17
Use an automated system to adjust specific systems 18.18%6
30.30%10
Total 33
Percent Response
Very easy 18.18%6
Somewhat easy 42.42%14
Neither easy nor difficult 24.24%8
Somewhat difficult 12.12%4
Very difficult 3.03%1
Total 33
Percent Response
Very satisfied 39.39%13
Somewhat satisfied 36.36%12
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 9.09%3
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.09%3
Very dissatisfied 6.06%2
Total 33
Percent Response
Very likely 72.73%24
Somewhat likely 12.12%4
Neither likely nor unlikely 3.03%1
Somewhat unlikely 6.06%2
Very unlikely 6.06%2
Total 33
Percent Response
Paper enrollment by mail 2.94%1
Enrollment by email 61.76%21
Online enrollment 35.29%12
Total 34
Answer
What is your facility's primary action to reduce load during an event?
Answer
How does your facility reduce load during an event?
How easy is it for you to understand how your load reduction is calculated during events?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Flex Peak program?
Answer
Use a mix of manual and automated processes to adjust specific systems
Answer
How likely are you to participate in the Flex Peak program in 2023?
How would you prefer to receive the auto enrollment paperwork in the future?(Check all that apply)
Answer
Answer
Percent Response
Fixed incentive too small 11.11%1
Variable incentive too small 33.33%3
Wasn't beneficial this year 22.22%2
Events too late in the day 11.11%1
Too many events in the season 0.00%0
Events too close together 0.00%0
Negative impact to the business 0.00%0
Other (please specify)22.22%2
Total 9
Percent Response
Very likely 15.15%5
Somewhat likely 12.12%4
Neither likely nor unlikely 24.24%8
Somewhat unlikely 27.27%9
Not likely at all 21.21%7
Total 33
Percent Response
Very likely 15.15%5
Somewhat likely 12.12%4
Neither likely nor unlikely 24.24%8
Somewhat unlikely 27.27%9
Not likely at all 21.21%7
Total 33
Percent Response
Very likely 6.06%2
Somewhat likely 15.15%5
Neither likely nor unlikely 36.36%12
Somewhat unlikely 15.15%5
Not likely at all 27.27%9
Total 33
Beyond the 2023 season, Idaho Power is exploring providing additional participation and incentive options for
participants. How likely are you to enroll additional facilities in the Flex Peak program under the following
hypothetical scenario options:
Maximum 1 event per calendar week with incentives approximately 75% lower
Maximum 1 event within a 7-day consecutive period with incentives approximately 80% lower
Answer
Answer
Answer
Answer
Maximum 2 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 50% lower
What about the program would prevent you from participating in 2023?(Check all that apply)
Percent Response
Very likely 12.12%4
Somewhat likely 21.21%7
Neither likely nor unlikely 21.21%7
Somewhat unlikely 24.24%8
Not likely at all 21.21%7
Total 33
Percent Response
Very likely 39.39%13
Somewhat likely 15.15%5
Neither likely nor unlikely 24.24%8
Somewhat unlikely 9.09%3
Not likely at all 12.12%4
Total 33
Answer
Answer
With current program parameters and incentive levels
Maximum 3 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 25% lower
Metro Community Services 21 18.92%
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 3 2.70%
El Ada Community Action Partnership 66 59.46%
South Central Community Action Partnership 10 9.01%
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 11 9.91%
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon 0 0.00%
Community in Action 0 0.00%
Total 111
Agency/Contractor flyer 19 16.67%
Idaho Power employee 4 3.51%
Idaho Power web site 16 14.04%
Friend or relative 55 48.25%
Letter in mail 4 3.51%
Other (Please specify)16 14.04%
Total 114
WICAP
WICAP
YCAP
Headstart Family Advocate
Heard about program
HVAC Contractor
local newspaper
My wife friend or info through ID Power
neighbor
El Ada
Emailed
energy assistance, Idaho Power
Family
flyer with my electric bill
found on line
Agency/Contractor Name:
How did you learn about the weatherization program?
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
by phone
EICAP Office
El Ada
Reduce utility bills 87 48.07%
Improve comfort of home 36 19.89%
Furnace concerns 32 17.68%
Water heater concerns 5 2.76%
Improve insulation 14 7.73%
Other (please specify)7 3.87%
Total 181
Completely 100 89.29%
Somewhat 12 10.71%
Not at all 0 0.00%
Total 112
How air leaks affect energy usage 65 23.55%
How insulation affects energy usage 38 13.77%
How to program the new thermostat 42 15.22%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 27 9.78%
How to use energy wisely 63 22.83%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 40 14.49%
Other (Please specify)1 0.36%
Total 276
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
Everything they so great
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization
process? (Check all that apply)
also receive help w/bill in winter
heat pump and furnace
my AC and heater broke
my children comfort
Really makes our home look better too!
wanted to do my part to lower consumption and improve problems
windows/draft and ice build up in winter
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well
was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Very likely 96 82.76%
Somewhat likely 18 15.52%
Not very likely 1 0.86%
Not likely at all 1 0.86%
Total 116
All of it 99 90.83%
Some of it 9 8.26%
None of it 1 0.92%
Total 109
Very likely 77 70.64%
Somewhat likely 30 27.52%
Somewhat unlikely 1 0.92%
Very unlikely 1 0.92%
Total 109
Washing full loads of clothes 58 15.14%
Washing full loads of dishes 44 11.49%
Turning off lights when not in use 74 19.32%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 57 14.88%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 74 19.32%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 75 19.58%
Other (please specify)1 0.26%
Total 383
Significantly 107 92.24%
Somewhat 6 5.17%
Very little 2 1.72%
Not at all 1 0.86%
Total 116
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
We have no dishwasher, no washer, no dryer
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)
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Courteousness
Excellent 114 98.28%
Good 2 1.72%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 116
Professionalism
Excellent 114 98.28%
Good 2 1.72%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 116
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
Excellent 110 97.35%
Good 3 2.65%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 113
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Excellent 112 98.25%
Good 2 1.75%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 114
Yes 89 78.07%
No 25 21.93%
Total 114
Very satisfied 112 98.25%
Somewhat satisfied 1 0.88%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 1 0.88%
Total 114
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Improved 110 94.83%
Stayed the same 6 5.17%
Decreased 0 0.00%
Total 116
0 25 21.55%
1 22 18.97%
2 29 25.00%
3 22 18.97%
4 6 5.17%
5 7 6.03%
6 or more 5 4.31%
Total 116
Less than 1 year 3 2.59%
1-10 years 26 22.41%
11-25 years 42 36.21%
26 years or more 45 38.79%
Total 116
Under 25 2 1.71%
25-34 7 5.98%
35-44 21 17.95%
45-54 28 23.93%
55-64 22 18.80%
65-74 22 18.80%
75 or older 15 12.82%
Total 117
Less than High School 15 12.93%
High School graduate or GED 58 50.00%
Some College or Technical School 23 19.83%
Associate Degree 8 6.90%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees)12 10.34%
Total 116
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:
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Thank you for helping the community, and us!
Thank you Thank you
Thank you to all involved in the process and Happy New Year!
Thank you. Your help is very much appreciated.
no comments but received signature
no responses but received signature
no responses marked but signature received
survey signed 7/1/22
Thamk you! We are very happy and much more comfortable now.
Thank you
I think t his program is very benificial to the people that it helps. very impressed with service
I want to thank you for all of this
It's a wonderful program for families and the staff is fantastic. the guys worked above and beyond.
Loved Wayne and Dave help, courteousness, good education, explanations, efficiency. Very
knowledgeable. A pleasure to have in my home. I liked everyone!
May consider more advertising (in my area)
no answers marked but signature received
I am very thankful with everything, I have more than I ask. god bless you
I appreciate everything that Idaho Power has done for us. We don't dserve it and we are very blessed
to get this service.
I have used and appreciated your help on keeping my home comfortable
I really appreciate all that was accomplished in my home to helf me conserve on electricity. The Metro
team were very respectful and I feel did a great job.
I really appreciate this
I think it was Great
estoy muy contenta con todo lo que me ayuduron para octerer esta nueva calecfacion y todo lo que
me pusieron muchas gracias
Everyone is wonderful at El Ada and Elite Systems. Thank you so much.
good comments to IDAOH Power
How very nice it is to help low income seniors living on Social Security that would never be able to
afford new windows or central heat and air. Thank you so much
I am thankful for the services performed by SCCAP
I am very thankful and apreciative for everything Idaho Power did. Thank you so much!
Angie hizo muy buen trabajo y estoy my agradecida con ella por toda su ayuda. Tambuen Doug y loas
demas se portaron muy amables connigo.
completely satisfied
Customer declined to complete.
customer signed but didn't complete survey-cpaoli
customer signed but left survey blank-CPaoli
Did a great job. thanks kindly
Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization programs.
Thank you. 
a pleasure to have the team come in and help us.
very satisfied
Thanks for 'Everything'
The team that came to work at my place were very polite and explained to me, in a way I could
understand always let me know they were on there way. I always felt safe in there presence. Thank
This is a great program! Thank you so much!
This is a great team of people from the office staff to the contractors! Everyone was friendly and
informitive. The qualify of work was very good and everything seemed to go smoothly. we are very
impressed with everyone involved but the stand out was the window insallation, incredible attendion
to detail!!
Very happy with the work and very appreciated and greateful for this program. Thank You
very nice people
Thankful & will recommend to others
Thankful for the help
Metro Contractor Services 0 0.00%
Home Energy Management 19 95.00%
Savings Around Power 1 5.00%
Power Savers 0 0.00%
Energy Solutions 0 0.00%
Total 20
Agency/Contractor flyer 0 0.00%
Idaho Power employee 0 0.00%
Idaho Power web site 1 5.26%
Friend or relative 4 21.05%
Letter in mail 2 10.53%
Other (Please specify)12 63.16%
Total 19
Reduce utility bills 12 63.16%
Improve comfort of home 4 21.05%
Furnace concerns 1 5.26%
Water heater concerns 0 0.00%
Improve insulation 1 5.26%
Other (please specify)1 5.26%
Total 19
bill stuff
Bill Stuffer
Heard about program
My wife friend or info through ID Power
to help conserve everyday use
How did you learn about the weatherization program?
Agency/Contractor Name:
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
Completely 8 42.11%
Somewhat 1 5.26%
Not at all 10 52.63%
Total 19
How air leaks affect energy usage 18 20.22%
How insulation affects energy usage 18 20.22%
How to program the new thermostat 5 5.62%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 17 19.10%
How to use energy wisely 17 19.10%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 13 14.61%
Other (Please specify)1 1.12%
Total 89
Very likely 15 78.95%
Somewhat likely 4 21.05%
Not very likely 0 0.00%
Not likely at all 0 0.00%
Total 19
All of it 8 88.89%
Some of it 1 11.11%
None of it 0 0.00%
Total 9
Very likely 9 90.00%
Somewhat likely 0 0.00%
Somewhat unlikely 1 10.00%
Very unlikely 0 0.00%
Total 10
all of the above
Other Option [Other (Please specify)]
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how
well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
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?
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
Washing full loads of clothes 2 9.09%
Washing full loads of dishes 0 0.00%
Turning off lights when not in use 1 4.55%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 9 40.91%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 1 4.55%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 1 4.55%
Other (please specify)8 36.36%
Total 22
Significantly 16 84.21%
Somewhat 3 15.79%
Very little 0 0.00%
Not at all 0 0.00%
Total 19
Excellent 19 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 19
Excellent 19 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 19
Does these already
client already does these
Already Does these
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Other Option [Other (please specify)]
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save
energy? (check all that apply)
already does these
already practice these
already does these
already does these
Professionalism
Courteousness
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Excellent 19 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 19
Excellent 19 100.00%
Good 0 0.00%
Fair 0 0.00%
Poor 0 0.00%
Total 19
Yes 18 100.00%
No 0 0.00%
Total 18
Very satisfied 18 100.00%
Somewhat satisfied 0 0.00%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied 0 0.00%
Total 18
Improved 15 78.95%
Stayed the same 4 21.05%
Decreased 0 0.00%
Total 19
0 9 47.37%
1 7 36.84%
2 1 5.26%
3 2 10.53%
4 0 0.00%
5 0 0.00%
6 or more 0 0.00%
Total 19
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor
Explanation of work to be performed on your home
How many people, beside yourself, live in your home year-round?
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Less than 1 year 0 0.00%
1-10 years 4 22.22%
11-25 years 3 16.67%
26 years or more 11 61.11%
Total 18
Under 25 0 0.00%
25-34 2 10.53%
35-44 1 5.26%
45-54 0 0.00%
55-64 4 21.05%
65-74 5 26.32%
75 or older 7 36.84%
Total 19
Less than High School 1 5.26%
High School graduate or GED 7 36.84%
Some College or Technical School 7 36.84%
Associate Degree 3 15.79%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees)1 5.26%
Total 19
Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answer Percent Responses
Owner 97.66%167
Employee 2.34%4
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 28.07%48
No 59.65%102
Not sure 12.28%21
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Fixed incentive too small 9.56%28
Variable incentive too small 7.51%22
Too much risk for crops 13.65%40
Too much trouble to coordinate (system/labor)12.97%38
Need more advance notification for events 7.17%21
Don't understand the benefits of the program 11.60%34
Too many events per week 2.73%8
Wasn't beneficial to me 9.56%28
Events too late in the day 6.83%20
Other (please specify)18.43%54
Total 293
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 46.20%79
No 38.01%65
Not sure 15.79%27
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Very easy 32.91%26
Somewhat easy 32.91%26
Neither easy nor difficult 21.52%17
Somewhat difficult 10.13%8
Very difficult 2.53%2
Total 79
How easy was it to understand the information in the Peak Rewards enrollment packet?
2022 Peak Rewards Non Participant Survey
Are you the owner or an employee of the farm, ranch, or business?
Have you participated in Idaho Power's Peak Rewards program in the past?
Which best describes your reason for not participating in the Peak Rewards program?(Check all that apply)
Do you recall receiving a Peak Rewards enrollment packet in the mail?
Answer Percent Responses
Paper enrollment by mail 45.03%77
Online enrollment 29.82%51
Both 25.15%43
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 8.77%15
Somewhat likely 16.37%28
Neither likely nor unlikely 21.05%36
Somewhat unlikely 9.94%17
Not likely at all 43.86%75
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 7.02%12
Somewhat likely 16.96%29
Neither likely nor unlikely 22.81%39
Somewhat unlikely 5.26%9
Not likely at all 47.95%82
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 4.68%8
Somewhat likely 14.04%24
Neither likely nor unlikely 25.73%44
Somewhat unlikely 8.19%14
Not likely at all 47.37%81
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 3.51%6
Somewhat likely 11.70%20
Neither likely nor unlikely 26.32%45
Somewhat unlikely 7.02%12
Not likely at all 51.46%88
Total 171
Maximum 2 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 50% lower
Maximum 3 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 25% lower
How would you prefer to receive the future enrollment paperwork?
Beyond the 2023 season, Idaho Power is exploring providing additional participation and incentive options for
participants. How likely are you to enroll pump locations in the Peak Rewards program under the following
hypothetical scenario options:
Maximum 1 event per calendar week with incentives approximately 75% lower
Maximum 1 event within a 7-day consecutive period with incentives approximately 80% lower
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 9.94%17
Somewhat likely 16.96%29
Neither likely nor unlikely 28.65%49
Somewhat unlikely 9.94%17
Not likely at all 34.50%59
Total 171
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 8.19%14
No 91.81%157
Not sure 0.00%0
Total 171
With current program parameters and incentive levels
Did you attend any of Idaho Power's irrigation workshops in the last 12 months?
Answer Percent Responses
Owner 86.02%80
Employee 13.98%13
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Idaho Power mailed enrollment packet 47.29%61
Idaho Power workshop 18.60%24
Idaho Power employee 10.85%14
Idaho Power Peak Rewards advertisement 17.83%23
Other (please specify)5.43%7
Total 129
Answer Percent Responses
Time of event hours 19.77%17
Possible number of events 11.63%10
Crop Type 17.44%15
Irrigation system type 41.86%36
Other (please specify)9.30%8
Total 86
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 47.31%44
No 34.41%32
Not sure 18.28%17
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Increased variable incentive 68.00%34
Later potential event time of 11 pm did not negatively impact me 22.00%11
Other (please specify)10.00%5
Total 50
Are you the owner or an employee of the participating farm, ranch, or business?
If you have service locations not enrolled in the Peak Rewards program, what is preventing you from
enrolling all of your irrigation service locations in the program? (Check all that apply)
2022 Peak Rewards Participant Survey
How did you learn about the Peak Rewards program?(Check all that apply)
The Extended Interruption Option allows for events between 3 pm and 11 pm and offers an increased
variable incentive of $0.25 per event kWh. Did you select the Extended Interruption Option during
enrollment for one or more of your pumps?
What made you choose to participate in the Extended Interruption Option?
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 33.33%31
Somewhat satisfied 41.94%39
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6.45%6
Somewhat dissatisfied 11.83%11
Very dissatisfied 6.45%6
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 60.22%56
Somewhat likely 24.73%23
Neither likely nor unlikely 4.30%4
Somewhat unlikely 3.23%3
Very unlikely 7.53%7
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Paper enrollment by mail 45.57%36
Online enrollment 16.46%13
Both 37.97%30
Total 79
Answer Percent Responses
I plan to increase my level of participation 7.59%6
I plan to not change my level of participation 82.28%65
I plan to decrease my level of participation 10.13%8
Total 79
Answer Percent Responses
Fixed incentive too small 18.60%8
Variable incentive too small 16.28%7
Too much risk for crops 16.28%7
Too much trouble to coordinate (system/labor)16.28%7
Wasn't beneficial this year 11.63%5
Events too late in the day 13.95%6
Other (please specify)6.98%3
Total 43
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Peak Rewards Program?
How likely are you to participate in the Peak Rewards Program in 2023 at any of your service locations?
How would you prefer to receive the future enrollment paperwork?
Do you plan to change your participation level in the program in 2023?
What about the program would prevent you from participating in 2023?(Check all that apply)
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 5.38%5
Somewhat likely 16.13%15
Neither likely nor unlikely 20.43%19
Somewhat unlikely 9.68%9
Not likely at all 48.39%45
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 6.45%6
Somewhat likely 12.90%12
Neither likely nor unlikely 17.20%16
Somewhat unlikely 15.05%14
Not likely at all 48.39%45
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 6.45%6
Somewhat likely 10.75%10
Neither likely nor unlikely 19.35%18
Somewhat unlikely 20.43%19
Not likely at all 43.01%40
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 2.15%2
Somewhat likely 17.20%16
Neither likely nor unlikely 20.43%19
Somewhat unlikely 13.98%13
Not likely at all 46.24%43
Total 93
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 37.63%35
Somewhat likely 25.81%24
Neither likely nor unlikely 15.05%14
Somewhat unlikely 4.30%4
Not likely at all 17.20%16
Total 93
Maximum 2 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 50% lower
Maximum 3 events per calendar week with incentives approximately 25% lower
With current program parameters and incentive level
Beyond the 2023 season, Idaho Power is exploring providing additional participation and incentive options
for participants. How likely are you to enroll additional pump locations in the Peak Rewards program
under the following hypothetical scenario options:
Maximum 1 event within a 7-day consecutive period with incentives approximately 80% lower
Maximum 1 event per calendar week with Incentives approximately 75% lower
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 16.13%15
No 79.57%74
Not sure 4.30%4
Total 93
Did you attend any of Idaho Power's irrigation workshops in the last 12 months?
Answer Percent Responses
Idaho Power employee 14.47%11
Contractor 63.16%48
Equipment supplier 6.58%5
Other business owner 7.89%6
Other (please specify)7.89%6
Total 76
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 82.89%63
Somewhat satisfied 14.47%11
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1.32%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 1.32%1
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 76
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 89.47%68
Somewhat satisfied 9.21%7
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1.32%1
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 76
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 89.47%68
Somewhat satisfied 7.89%6
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2.63%2
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Very dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 76
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 6.58%5
No 93.42%71
Total 76
How satisfied are you with the contractor that you hired to install the equipment?
2022 Retrofits Survey Results
Would you like Idaho Power to follow up with you regarding this survey or the Retrofits program?
How did you learn about the Retrofits program?
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Idaho Power Retrofits incentive program?
Answer Percent Responses
Very Satisfied 89.36%42
Somewhat Satisfied 8.51%4
Somewhat Dissatisfied 2.13%1
Very Dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 47
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 93.62%44
Somewhat satisfied 6.38%3
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0.00%0
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 47
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 89.36%42
Somewhat satisfied 6.38%3
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4.26%2
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00%0
Total 47
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 10.64%5
No 89.36%42
Total 47
2022 SBDI Non Respondent Follow Up Survey
How satisfied are you with the customer service provided by the company installing the equipment?
Would you like Idaho Power to follow up with you regarding this survey or the Small Business Direct Install
program?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the program?
How satisfied are you with the equipment that was installed?

2022 SBDI Program Customer Satisfaction Survey Responses

Q7 Response Breakout
Response Number of Responses
Program was free / Cost is right 58
Lighting Upgrade/Better Lighting 52
Efficiency & Savings 44
No response 18
Misc. responses 10
Participated due to letter/Outreach/WOM 8
Wanting to upgrade to LED and program helped 2
Building owner or landlord decided to participate 2

Q8 Response Breakout
Response Number of Responses
No improvement suggestions 55
Provide more clarity about scheduling process and improve
communication on process
8
Program sounds too good to be true, very skeptical with letter
and contractor who stopped by. Suggest different marketing.
2
Bring threshold of amount higher so more businesses can take
part in program.
1
Look harder to install occupancy sensors in larger areas.

1

Q9 Response Breakout
Response Number of Responses
No/Nothing 50
Solar panels 2
Computer backup surge protector systems 1
Heat control for showers 1
Door sealing strips 1
Motion sensors 1
Dimmer switches 1
Covers for outsides of windows to prevent heat from radiation 1
Matching existing LED lights to the new install 1

Answer Percent Responses
Email from Idaho Power 44.74%170
Friend or relative 29.47%112
Neighbor 5.26%20
Utility employee 2.63%10
Other (please specify)17.89%68
Total 380
Answer Percent Responses
Tree was free 14.09%51
Home too warm in the summer 16.02%58
Reduce energy bill 14.92%54
Improve landscape/property value 17.68%64
Wanted a tree 19.89%72
Help the environment 14.92%54
Other (please specify)11.76%9
Total 362
Answer Percent Responses
Lack of knowledge 16.57%60
Cost 47.51%172
Time 11.60%42
Other (please specify)24.31%88
Total 362
Answer Percent Responses
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement store 35.08%127
Nursery/garden store 61.88%224
Other (please specify)3.04%11
Total 362
Answer Percent Responses
10 minutes or less 59.49%210
11-20 minutes 32.29%114
21-30 minutes 6.52%23
31 minutes or more 1.70%6
Total 353
2022 Shade Tree Survey Results
Where would you typically purchase a new tree?(Mark one)
How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
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 Percent Responses
Very easy 73.31%261
Somewhat easy 24.44%87
Somewhat difficult 2.25%8
Very difficult 0.00%0
Total 356
Answer Percent Responses
Received by mail 50.70%108
Picked up at Boise event 10.80%23
Picked up at Nampa event 20.19%43
Picked up at Meridian event 18.31%39
Don't know 0.00%0
Total 213
Answer Percent Responses
Received by mail 46.31%69
Picked up at Boise event 6.71%10
Picked up at Twin Falls event 44.30%66
Don't know 2.68%4
Total 149
Answer Percent Responses
One 14.64%53
Two 85.36%309
Total 362
Ordered One Tree
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Percent Responses
22.64%12
50.94%27
9.43%5
9.43%5
7.55%4
Same day as the tree arrival/pick up
pickup 1-3 days after the tree arrival/pick up
pickup 4-7 days after the tree arrival/pick up
Pickup more than 1 week after the tree arrival/pick up
Did not plant the trees
Total
Answer Percent Responses
North 10.20%5
South 10.20%5
Northeast 8.16%4
Southwest 18.37%9
East 12.24%6
West 28.57%14
Southeast 4.08%2
Northwest 8.16%4
Total 49
Answer Percent Responses
20 feet or less 46.94%23
21-40 feet 42.86%21
41-60 feet 8.16%4
More than 60 feet 2.04%1
Total 49
Answer Percent Responses
One 4.21%13
Two 84.79%262
Did not plant the trees 11.00%34
Total 309
When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Percent Responses
Same day as the tree arrival/pickup 7.69%1
1-3 days after the tree arrival/pickup 46.15%6
4-7 days after the tree arrival/pickup 7.69%1
More than 1 week after the tree arrival/pickup 38.46%5
Total 13
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Ordered Two Trees
How many shade trees did you plant?
Ordered Two, Planted One
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Percent Responses
North 7.69%1
South 23.08%3
Northeast 0.00%0
Southwest 0.00%0
East 23.08%3
West 38.46%5
Southeast 0.00%0
Northwest 7.69%1
Total 13
Answer Percent Responses
20 feet or less 46.15%6
21-40 feet 53.85%7
41-60 feet 0.00%0
More than 60 feet 0.00%0
Total 13
Answer Percent Responses
Same day as the tree arrival/pickup 16.41%43
1-3 days after the tree arrival/pickup 52.29%137
4-7 days after the tree arrival/pickup 17.18%45
More than 1 week after the tree arrival/pickup 14.12%37
Total 262
Answer Percent Responses
Same day as the tree arrival/pickup 15.65%41
1-3 days after the tree arrival/pickup 49.62%130
4-7 days after the tree arrival/pickup 19.08%50
More than 1 week after the tree arrival/pickup 15.65%41
Total 262
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
When did you plant your shade tree?
Tree One
Tree Two
Ordered Two, Planted Two
Answer Percent Responses
North 10.69%28
South 12.60%33
Northeast 3.82%10
Southwest 15.27%40
East 11.45%30
West 35.88%94
Southeast 5.73%15
Northwest 4.58%12
Total 262
Answer Percent Responses
North 6.11%16
South 12.21%32
Northeast 4.58%12
Southwest 19.08%50
East 11.83%31
West 33.21%87
Southeast 9.16%24
Northwest 3.82%10
Total 262
Tree One
Answer Percent Responses
20 feet or less 28.24%74
21-40 feet 55.34%145
41-60 feet 12.60%33
More than 60 feet 3.82%10
Total 262
Answer Percent Responses
20 feet or less 22.52%59
21-40 feet 54.96%144
41-60 feet 16.41%43
More than 60 feet 6.11%16
Total 262
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Tree One
Tree Two
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Tree Two
Answer Percent Responses
Changed my mind 1.96%1
Did not like the tree 1.96%1
Did not have time 5.88%3
Other (please specify)90.20%46
Total 51
Answer Percent Responses
Very satisfied 78.73%285
Somewhat satisfied 17.40%63
Somewhat dissatisfied 3.04%11
Very dissatisfied 0.83%3
Total 362
Answer Percent Responses
Planting depth 48.04%172
Circling roots 14.53%52
Staking 8.66%31
Watering 22.91%82
Other (please specify)5.87%21
Total 358
I am satisfied with Shade Tree Project delivery method
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 58.88%63
Somewhat agree 24.30%26
Somewhat disagree 10.28%11
Strongly disagree 6.54%7
Total 107
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 85.71%90
Somewhat agree 13.33 14
Somewhat disagree 0.95%1
Strongly disagree 0.00%0
Total 105
Why did you not plant your tree?(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?
How much do you agree with the following statements:
I am satisfied with the Shade Tree Project pick up event
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 64.43%230
Somewhat agree 24.37%87
Somewhat disagree 6.72%24
Strongly disagree 4.48%16
Total 357
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 79.57%257
Somewhat agree 19.20%62
Somewhat disagree 1.24%4
Strongly disagree 0.00%0
Total 323
Answer Percent Responses
Strongly agree 90.83%327
Somewhat agree 7.50%27
Somewhat disagree 0.56%2
Strongly disagree 1.11%4
Total 360
I am satisfied with my overall experience
Answer Percent Responses
Very likely 80.56%290
Somewhat likely 14.72%53
Neither likely nor unlikely 2.78%10
Somewhat unlikely 1.94%7
Total 360
May we use your name and comments?
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 54.97%199
No 45.03%163
Total 362
Answer Percent Responses
Yes 64.82%234
No 35.18%127
Total 361
May we follow up with you?
It was easy to plant my shade tree(s)
I am satisfied with the tree(s) I received from the Shade Tree Project
I would recommend the program to a friend or relative
Answer Percent Responses
Before 1950 8.86%32
1950-1959 4.43%16
1960-1969 3.60%13
1970-1979 11.91%43
1980-1989 5.54%20
1990-1999 6.93%25
2000-2009 15.24%55
2010-2019 15.24%55
2020-present 26.87%97
Don't know 1.39%5
Total 361
Answer Percent Responses
Electricity 43.21%156
Natural gas 42.94%155
Propane 5.54%20
Fuel oil 0.28%1
Wood 6.37%23
Other (please specify)1.66%6
Total 361
Answer Percent Responses
None 3.64%14
Central air conditioner 70.91%273
Heat pump 16.88%65
Individual room or window air conditioner 6.75%26
Evaporative/swamp cooler 1.04%4
Other (please specify)0.78%3
Total 385
Answer Percent Responses
Under 18 0.28%1
18-24 0.84%3
25-34 17.55%63
35-44 27.02%97
45-60 31.20%112
Over 60 23.12%83
Total 359
Which of the following best describes your age?
What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence?
What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence? (Check all that apply)
When was this residence originally built?(Select when the building was originally constructed . Not when it was
remodeled, added to, or converted.)
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 249
EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Idaho Power Company Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program—Retrofits 2021 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results
Commercial,
Industrial
Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
Process Evaluation
Idaho Power 2021 Home Energy Report Program Impact
Evaluation
Residential ADM Idaho Power Impact Evaluation
Impact & Process Evaluation of Idaho Power Company
PY2021 Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program
Commercial ADM Idaho Power Impact and
Process Evaluation
Idaho Power Company Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program—New Construction 2021 Program
Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results
Commercial,
Industrial
Tetra Tech Idaho Power Impact and
Process Evaluation

Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 250 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

Idaho Power Company

Idaho Power Company
Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program – Retrofits
2021 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results

November 30, 2022

ii Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 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 C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 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 ................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Process Recommendations ............................................................................................... 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals ............................................................................................................... 5
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Lighting............................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.2 Non-Lighting .................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Review of PY2018 Impact Recommendations .......................................................................... 15
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Process Review Results........................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Materials and Outreach Review ....................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Interview Contractors ....................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2021 Program Realization Rates ......................................................................................... 2
Table 2. PY2021 Retrofits Summary by Project Measure Type .............................................................. 4
Table 3. PY2021 Retrofits Offering Evaluation Activities ........................................................................ 5
Table 4. PY2021 Retrofits Sampling Summary ...................................................................................... 8
Table 5: PY2021 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects ....................................................................... 9
Table 6. PY2021 Retrofits Lighting Impact Results Summary .............................................................. 11
Table 7: PY2021 Non-Lighting Impact Results Summary ..................................................................... 14

iv Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Table 8. PY2018 CIEE Retrofits Program Recommendations .............................................................. 15

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program Savings ................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Process Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................ 17

v Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2021 impact and process evaluation of the Retrofits offering 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 Shelley Martin, Chad Severson, 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. 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, Graham Thorbrogger, Nathan Kwan, Andrew Spista, and Laura Meyer.

1 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2022 impact and process evaluation of the 2021 Retrofits offering of the Idaho Power Commercial and
Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (CIEE Program). The Idaho Power CIEE Program 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.
This report section consists of (1) an introduction describing the program, (2) methodology, and (3) key
findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results can be found in Section 3.0, with process results detailed in Section 4.0.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Retrofits (Retrofits) offering of the CIEE program provides incentives for prescriptive energy-saving retrofit measures to existing equipment or facilities. This part of the program encourages customers in Idaho and Oregon to implement energy efficiency upgrades by offering incentives on a defined list of measures. Eligible measures cover various energy-saving opportunities in lighting, HVAC, building
shell, food service equipment, and other commercial measures. Customers can also apply for non-standard lighting incentives.
Customers complete the preapproval application if they are interested in receiving Retrofits incentives (if the estimated project costs are over $1,500). Application forms are specific to lighting or non-lighting measures, and customers must use the form that matches their measure type. Both forms are completed if the project includes both lighting and non-lighting equipment.
Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information. Licensed electrical contractors are required for most lighting project installations. Once the eligible equipment is installed, the customer completes the application process by submitting the payment application with all the necessary documentation and emailing it to Idaho Power. If the customer wants the incentive payment to go to a third party, information for the third party is required.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
To address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2021 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.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities

Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for the Retrofits offering. Figure 2 highlights the activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Review data and conduct sampling Complete desk reviews Conduct site verifications Verify kilowatt-hour savings

2 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities
1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The impact evaluation for the Retrofits offering found a successfully-run program that balances the use
of prescriptive assumptions and values with the data collection from the project site. The program stays current with baseline requirements and market conditions for measures and documents their calculation methods and assumptions in template spreadsheets. During the on-site visits, the evaluation found
minor adjustments to building hours of operations and lighting control systems. Still, overall, findings from the impact evaluation show the program savings calculations are accurate and well-documented. The overall realization rate for the program is 96.4 percent, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. PY2021 Program Realization Rates
Measure type Number of projects MWh claimed MWh evaluated Program realization rate
Lighting and controls 751 19,755 18,985 96.1%
Non-lighting 36 1,426 1,426 100.0%
Total 787 21,181 20,411 96.4%
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Develop the exterior lighting controls savings factors. The lighting control savings claimed for projects are identical for interior and exterior controls. However, the exterior lighting controls tend to result in substantially less savings because the controls are likely to allow partial power instead of completely disconnecting the fixture like interior fixtures. A separate lighting control savings factor will
account for this adjustment.
Document lighting control savings for transparency to the applicant. The lighting control savings are incorporated into the lighting tool, although the savings are hidden in the same line as the lighting
equipment retrofit. The Retrofits offering can support the participant in making more informed decisions by (1) publishing the table detailing the energy savings percentage per lighting control type and (2) documenting the lighting control savings separately from the lighting equipment savings. These steps
will start a conversation with participant staff about access, operation, and expectations of control systems.
Consider incorporating interactive effects into the Retrofits lighting tool. Idaho Power's current
lighting tool does not incorporate interactive effects of the lighting wattage reduction on the HVAC load; this is different from the stacking effect when both lighting and HVAC are installed. A reduced lighting load reduces the internal heat gain to the building, which reduces the air conditioning and cooling load while increasing the heating load. Incorporating interactive effects into the lighting tool can more accurately report energy savings based on actual site conditions; however, the lighting application will have to collect information regarding the heating fuel and the type of air conditioning.
Program staff interviews Materials and outreach review Contractor interviews

3 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Consider adjusting the anti-sweat heater measure to differentiate between medium- and low-temperature refrigeration. The latest Technical Reference Manual (TRM) provides a single energy
savings value for an anti-sweat heater for glass case doors on refrigerators (medium temperature) and freezers (low temperature). There is an assumption about the split between medium temperature and low temperature. Creating a measure for each will attribute savings more accurately to each location
that installs anti-sweat heaters.
1.3.2 Process Recommendations
The Retrofits offering of the CIEE program is operating well. Contractors feel supported and informed of program requirements and changes. Idaho Power staff have acted on previous recommendations to
consolidate CIEE program information, and a couple of the current recommendations are an extension of that strategy. The following process recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Continue to increase in-person program overview training where possible. Idaho Power has
resumed scheduling face-to-face meetings with contractors after suspending them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our conversations with contractors confirm a real appetite for resuming those meetings and trainings. Although they understand why meetings were suspended, several contractors mentioned interest in getting back to more face-to-face meetings for the interaction they provide with Idaho Power staff and other contractors.
Consider developing a consolidated contractor list across CIEE programs with substantial overlap. The New Construction Program Specialist conducts numerous outreach activities with architects and engineers. However, firms we spoke with were often unclear on which CIEE program offering they were utilizing (New Construction, Retrofits, Custom) because it was usually more than one. A consolidated list of active contractors, architects, and engineering firms may help coordinate messaging to market actors, giving them more clarity as they work with customers.
Maintaining a combined outreach list will also provide documentation in the event of staff changes and can assist with further managing outreach and engagement. Tracking could include flags for the type of contractor, date of last event attendance, and record notes on known relationships where firms are
working together, such as compressed air firms working with engineering firms, lighting distributors working with installers, etc.
Consider a leave-behind brochure for contractors with all CIEE programs. There is substantial
overlap in experience across programs among firms we interviewed. Idaho Power already approaches contractor and design firm conversations with a CIEE overview and leaves appropriate program-specific information for them, depending on the contractor's specialty. Also leaving behind an overview
of all the CIEE programs may help the contractors and design firms better understand the different incentive options Idaho Power provides, and how they can direct customers to the most appropriate offering depending on their situation.

4 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Retrofits offering of the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency program (CIEE) provides incentives for prescriptive energy-saving retrofit measures to existing equipment or facilities.
This part of the program encourages customers in Idaho and Oregon to implement energy efficiency upgrades by offering incentives on a defined list of measures. Eligible measures cover a variety of energy-saving opportunities in lighting, HVAC, building shell, food service equipment, and other
commercial measures. Customers can also apply for non-standard lighting incentives.
Customers interested in receiving Retrofits offering incentives complete the preapproval application if the estimated project costs are over $1,500. Application forms are specific to lighting or non-lighting
measures, and customers must use the form that matches their measure type. Both forms are completed if the project includes both lighting and non-lighting equipment.

Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information. Licensed electrical contractors are required for most lighting project installations. Once the eligible equipment is installed, the customer completes the application process by submitting the
payment application with all required documentation and emailing it to Idaho Power. If the customer wants the incentive payment to go to a third-party, information for the third party is required.
In 2021, 787 projects were completed through the program, with a total savings of 21,181 MWh. Over
90 percent of the projects and savings are from the lighting and controls measure category. Although the non-lighting portion of the program contains various measures, it is not used by local contractors as much as the lighting component.

Table 2. PY2021 Retrofits Summary by Project Measure Type
Measure Number of projects MWh saved
Lighting and controls 751 19,755
Non-lighting 36 1,426
Total 787 21,181
Complete pre-approval application
•Download lighting tool or non-lighting application and worksheets; complete applicable sections
•Gather specification sheets
•Email for Idaho Power review
Install equipment
•Must use licensed contractor for certain measures
•Inspections may occur before or after project installation
Complete payment application
•Adjust pre-approval information if needed
•Download if not preapproved and fill out
•Include specification sheets
•Email for Idaho Power review

5 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The evaluation activities conducted for the Retrofits offering are summarized in Table 3. This section also discusses research issues and the sampling strategy for desk reviews and on-site visits.
Table 3. PY2021 Retrofits Offering Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size Outcome
Interviews with program delivery staff 1 Understood program design and delivery and obtained program staff perspective on program successes and challenges. We also confirmed researchable issues.
Review of program delivery and marketing materials
N/A Reviewed materials such as marketing brochures, program manuals, outreach plans, and the program website for messaging and communication benefits.
Tracking system review N/A Reviewed the tracking system to determine if all necessary inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient information for program review.
Desk reviews 30 Reviewed project documentation and calculations to assess the accuracy of savings claimed for each project. This included review of the energy savings calculations for conformance to the TRM for the version year identified.
Verification on-site visits

13 Completed visits to a sample of sites to verify the installation of incentivized measures and check assumptions used in savings calculations. The locations were matched to projects that have had a completed desk review.
Contractor interviews 11 Collected feedback from contractors working with the program, which included satisfaction and suggested improvements.
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals
The impact and process evaluation goals below were addressed through the various evaluation activities:
Impact Evaluation
• Review the tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kilowatt-hour) impacts attributable to the 2021 program.
• Complete file reviews and verify engineering calculations with 90/10 (relative error of no more than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence) confidence and precision.
• Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-post realization rates attributed to the program for the 2021 program year.
• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
• Verify installation and operating conditions of equipment.
Process Evaluation

6 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
• Evaluate program design to ensure the use of industry best practices.
• Evaluate program implementation, including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
• Review program forms, manuals, and marketing materials, and provide recommendations for
improvements as needed.
• Evaluate program administration, including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation, and reporting.
• Understand customer and contractor barriers to participation in the program and provide
recommendations to increase participation.
• Investigate how to best integrate the Custom Projects, New Construction, and Retrofits offerings.
• Identify contractor motivations for installing energy-efficient equipment and whether the program or incentive has an effect.

7 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 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 four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3. Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 3. Process for Verifying Program Savings

Review Data and Conduct Sampling
The tracking system and documentation were provided to the evaluation team for review; the tracking data included a combination of information from Idaho Power and participants. The Project Applications for the Retrofits offering collected information from the program applicant, including the following:
• account information, including business name and account or meter number, installation address, and contact information;
• a project description (non-lighting);
• estimated project costs and savings (only on lighting projects);
• project timeline information (dates); and
• vendor or installer information.
• Payee information
Idaho Power logged this information and stored it in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In addition to the information above, the CLRIS database includes:
• a project ID;
• customer rate class;
• participant region and Idaho Power energy advisor;
• project type (lighting or non-lighting);
• project measure;
• application status, including interim dates of Idaho Power actions, such as application submission, payment to the participant, and final inspection;
• incentive details; and
Review data and conduct sampling Complete desk reviews Conduct site verifications Verify kilowatt-hour savings

8 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
• gross kilowatt and kilowatt-hour savings and incentives per measure.
Additional database tables are kept, which connect the project ID and information above with the measure-level information listed below. Some information is carried over, which is not represented in the list.
• premise and landlord type;
• project application unique name;
• project building type;
• non-energy benefit (NEB) value;
• units of measure for equipment quantity;
• existing equipment notes, size, and quantity with the estimated energy consumption of the baseline;
• proposed equipment notes, size, and quantity with the estimated energy consumption of the new energy-efficient equipment; and
• measure-level savings claimed and incentive.
Sampling was conducted at the project ID level using tracking data. The sample was stratified to ensure the random sample matched the evaluation goals to understand non-lighting and the lighting and controls sector. The sampling is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. PY2021 Retrofits Sampling Summary
Sampling stratum Total projects (total quantity) Program kWh savings percentage Sample projects (total quantity) Sample kWh savings percentage
Lighting and controls 751 93.3% 21 12.4%
Non-lighting 36 6.7% 9 1.4%
Total 787 100.0% 30 13.9%
The objective of the impact evaluation was to meet the precision requirement of 90/10 (relative error of no more than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence). The sampling used a probability proportionate to
size (PPS) approach, with the kilowatt-hour savings for each project representing its size. In this
approach, every participant has a known probability of selection, but the probability is no longer equal. Instead, a participant with twice the kilowatt-hour savings as another participant has twice the likelihood of being selected. The resulting evaluated savings and realization rates should be unbiased and represent the population more efficiently (i.e., with a smaller sampling error).
In addition to the PPS sampling, Tetra Tech applied several other criteria to ensure the distribution of the projects matched the evaluation goals. The following criteria were included in the sampling:
• In the non-lighting stratum, a minimum of four projects from PY2021.
• In the lighting stratum, a minimum of two projects per Idaho Power region.
The list of sampled projects was delivered to Idaho Power. The individual project files were securely delivered to the evaluation team by an internet-based file-sharing site that required log-in access. The
files delivered included:

9 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
• applications,
• lighting tool calculator (administrative version),
• measure worksheet scans for non-lighting projects,
• labor-and-materials invoices,
• equipment specification sheets and certifications,
• post-installation inspections (when available),
• photos, and
• a screenshot of the tracking system project closeout.
Complete Desk Reviews
Tetra Tech staff conducted desk reviews of the sampled project files. This engineering and 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
Tetra Tech engineers conducted site verification visits from August 3‒5 and August 8‒12. Idaho Power staff were invited to attend the site visits. While on-site, Tetra Tech engineers conducted a walkthrough of the building and interviewed site representatives to verify the installation and operation of energy-efficient equipment. Parameters verified included lighting and HVAC quantities, equipment specifications, the functionality of lighting controls, and lighting operating hours. Verifying key operating assumptions and equipment performance confirms the installation and attention to the operating
parameters. Finally, the evaluation inspectors asked key questions to confirm assumptions and determine satisfaction with the program process.
Verify Kilowatt-Hour 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. Desk reviews and site verifications were completed for thirteen participants, and the remaining seventeen had only a desk review completed.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the evaluation found that the Retrofits offering had an impact realization rate of 96.4 percent with a relative precision of 3.0 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval. The measure category realization rates are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: PY2021 Realization Rates of Sampled Projects
Measure Ex-ante kWh Ex-post kWh Realization rate
Lighting and controls 2,620,404 2,516,780 96.1%
Non-lighting 332,874 332,874 100.0%

10 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
The overall program realization rate of 96 percent is slightly lower than the 99 percent realization rate from the previous evaluation for PY2018. The realization rate decreased because the on-site
verifications identified adjustments to exterior lighting controls and hours of operation of participating facilities. The variability between the DesignLights Consortium (DLC) certification wattage listed and the lighting equipment specification sheets also contributed to a slight adjustment in the realization rate.
In addition to evaluating the savings claimed, available information—including calculation protocols and the program's quality assurance—was reviewed. The Idaho Power Retrofits documentation is clear, and the application workbook is sufficient in providing clear direction and communication of project
parameters from contractors to Idaho Power. Once a project is finalized, Idaho Power creates an administrative copy of the savings worksheets to incorporate adjustments to the application information and the energy savings adjustments required by the program rules.
Idaho Power's lighting tool was used to calculate savings for Retrofits lighting projects reviewed in 2021. This lighting tool allows for simplified savings calculation verifications, with dropdowns and lookup tables for many baseline lighting types, ease of defining custom facility hours of operation, and the application of control factors to incorporate installed lighting controls. The evaluation did identify that the lighting tool does not account for the interactive effects between the lower lighting wattage and the load of the HVAC system.
Documentation for lighting projects was consistent and adequate in verifying claimed energy savings, with only a few instances of missing post-inspection forms or invoices that were not itemized with lighting model numbers. The post-install inspection reports were organized and detailed to determine verified installation equipment and operations.
On-site visits of Retrofits lighting projects verified assumptions and equipment claimed. However, the operation of the lighting controls for exterior lighting (e.g., networked controls) did not match the expected operation to obtain the percentage of savings claimed by the measure. There was also minimal exterior lighting control operational knowledge from the site representatives; the evaluation
team reached out to lighting contractors or suppliers to confirm the operation. In addition, the site visits identified hours of operation differences from the custom hours entered in the lighting tool for two other locations.
On-site visits of Retrofits non-lighting projects verified equipment model numbers and quantities. Documentation identifying savings calculation methodology (i.e., deemed savings values or TRM version) was not provided for the sampled projects; however, the evaluation team was able to verify the saving claimed through individual project confirmation with program staff. Increasing the documentation to verify the program rules or TRM version along with the savings calculation methodology is an opportunity for improvement.
The evaluation team found that the confirmation of proposed or installed equipment was consistent. However, Idaho Power does not use third-party verification of efficiency or lighting fixture wattages, such as DLC or Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Insititute (AHRI). Because the evaluation team uses DLC and AHRI to determine equipment energy consumption, this resulted in some lighting savings adjustments to Retrofits projects.
3.2.1 Lighting
Lighting projects account for approximately 93 percent of the 2021 Retrofits offering savings. The sample included 21 projects with lighting only or lighting and controls components, accounting for about 91 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 6 shows realization rates for each project, with the total

11 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
realization rate for claimed lighting savings at 96 percent.
Table 6. PY2021 Retrofits Lighting Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
200344 171,395 170,953 99.7%
200369 14,710 12,940 88.0%
200437 267,698 268,273 100.2%
200483 191,064 191,064 100.0%
200493 98,366 98,366 100.0%
200528 138,197 136,060 98.5%
200545 132,838 127,503 96.0%
200591 24,826 25,545 102.9%
200598 110,263 102,964 93.4%
200604 14,436 13,939 96.6%
200612 10,411 10,061 96.6%
200619 215,472 212,683 98.7%
200639 485,914 422,254 86.9%
200657 314,376 300,033 95.4%
200681 35,621 35,693 100.2%
200774 2,268 2,262 99.8%
210065 19,553 19,553 100.0%
210089 13,856 9,873 71.3%
210173 63,582 56,166 88.3%
210379 291,664 297,152 101.9%
210516 3,895 3,443 88.4%
Overall 2,620,404 2,516,780 96.1%
The lighting energy efficiency was determined using the lighting tool, which develops comprehensive lighting retrofit savings for C&I projects. The document acts as an application collecting project
description, location, installation contractor, and electrical supplier information. The form also collects detailed information about the lighting operating schedules, installed equipment specifications, and quantity. Based on the evaluation findings, there are opportunities to increase the accuracy of the
claimed savings calculated, although alternatives discussed with the program staff found that the improvement was minimal compared to the effort to adjust.
The lighting equipment specification section identifies the Qualified Product List (QPL) for each lighting
fixture installed, allowing for exceptions. The lighting input wattage collected is entered on the product type sheet; however, using the QPL-listed wattages is not specified. The evaluation adjusted wattages to meet the QPL listing on about half of the sampled projects. The evaluation adjusts wattages to the
DLC QPL listed wattages because the third-party independent testing of individual fixture energy

12 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
consumption provides consistency across lighting fixtures in the marketplace. Since the lighting input wattage increased and decreased through this adjustment, the overall impact of these adjustments is
minimal at the program level.
The lighting energy saving is straightforward once the information in the application is collected. However, two components would increase the accuracy of the lighting energy savings calculation. First,
the lighting retrofit has interactive effects on HVAC systems because the heat generated by the decreased wattages installed changes the building heat load, typically ranging between a three and five percent adjustment on the energy savings. Second, the addition of the lighting controls energy
consumption reduction would help participants understand the overall impact of the lighting controls, make better-informed decisions about the value of the controls, and understand the scale of the attributed savings. Separating lighting control savings from the lighting equipment savings will provide marketplace support to detail the potential value of the controls.
The lighting control savings percentages were reviewed and reasonable for the installed interior lighting control systems. The exterior lighting control systems overestimated energy savings when using similar
control structures. The primary reason for the variation between indoor and outdoor lighting control savings is that the exterior lighting is programmed to a partial level when the sensors consider there is no need for lighting, while the interior system will completely shut off under the same conditions. Incorporating the exterior lighting control typical operation can reduce the control savings percentage by up to 30 percent for the advanced control systems. The evaluation incorporated this adjustment to the exterior lighting Networked Area Controls and Networked LLLC Controls energy savings percentage to reduce the savings from 50 percent to 35 percent of estimated consumption.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each lighting savings adjustment.
Project ID 200344: A business replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting and networked controls. The evaluation team adjusted lighting wattages to their DLC- and ENERGY STAR®-certified values, slightly decreasing energy savings. The realization rate is nearly 100 percent.
Project ID 200369: A business replaced exterior metal halide and compact fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and found lighting controls were malfunctioning; savings for these controls were removed from the evaluation calculations, reducing
energy savings. The realization rate is 88 percent.
Project ID 200437: A warehouse replaced interior fluorescent lighting, exterior metal halide lighting, and exterior halogen lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team calculated identical energy
savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 200483: A manufacturer replaced metal halide high bay lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team calculated identical energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 200493: An educational facility replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed all fixture types and quantities. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 200528: A business replaced exterior pulse-start HID lighting with LED lighting and dusk-to-dawn photocell controls in their parking lot. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit and confirmed all fixture types and quantities. The fixture wattage for one model was adjusted to the DLC-certified value, slightly decreasing savings. The realization rate is 99 percent.
Project ID 200545: A warehouse and retailer replaced interior incandescent lighting, interior fluorescent lighting, and exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting and networked controls. The

13 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, confirming hours of operation and controls. Also, 340 four-foot LED fixtures were found instead of the documented count of 169 eight-foot fixtures. One
fixture model was not found, and other fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values, reducing savings. The realization rate is 96 percent.
Project ID 200591: A business replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting with LED lighting and
occupancy sensors in their parts room. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, confirming hours of operation, lighting quantities, and controls. Fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values, increasing savings. The realization rate is 103 percent.
Project ID 200598: A business replaced exterior metal halide and compact fluorescent lighting with LED lighting and occupancy sensor controls. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, confirming lighting quantities. Controls could not be verified as operational, and their savings were removed from the evaluation calculations. Fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values. Both adjustments decreased energy savings. The realization rate is 93 percent.
Project ID 200604: A customer replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation
team conducted an on-site visit, confirming fixture type, but found one less fixture than claimed, decreasing savings. Fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values, also decreasing savings. The realization rate is 97 percent.
Project ID 200612: A customer replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, confirming fixture type, but foundone less fixture than claimed, decreasing savings. Fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values, also decreasing savings. The realization rate is 97 percent.
Project ID 200619: A business replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team updated fixture wattages to their DLC-certified values, decreasing savings. The realization rate is 99 percent.
Project ID 200639: A manufacturer replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting, exterior metal halide
lighting, and exterior high-pressure sodium lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, finding lighting to average 14.4 hours per day instead of the claimed 16 hours per day; this decreased savings. The realization rate is 87 percent.
Project ID 200657: A business replaced exterior HID metal halide lighting with LED lighting and networked controls. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, verifying lighting quantities and hours of operation. The control strategy was changed from networked controls (LLLC) to multiple
control strategies, as they were in effect for approximately half of the night. Fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values. Both adjustments decreased energy savings. The realization rate is 95 percent.
Project ID 200681: A customer replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting, interior metal halide lighting, and exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team adjusted fixture wattages to their DLC-certified values, slightly increasing savings. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 200774: A retailer replaced exterior metal halide lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team adjusted fixture wattages to their DLC-certified values, slightly decreasing savings. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210065: A warehouse replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting with LED lighting via self-installation. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, verifying operating hours and lighting quantities. The realization rate is 100 percent.

14 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Project ID 210089: A facility replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit, verifying operating hours and sensor types. The onsite
documented 106 light fixtures were installed while the claimed calculation showed 104 fixtures. The baseline fixtures removed was 97 fixtures, so this was not adjusted. Fixture wattages were updated to their DLC-certified values. These two adjustments decreased energy savings. The realization
rate is 71 percent.
Project ID 210173: An academic building replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit. Actual annual operating hours were decreased from
5,892 to 5,053 because the schedule provided was used for approximately 45 weeks of the year. The on-stite visit identified two fewer fixtures installed than were listed in the documentation. Fixture wattages were also updated to their DLC-certified values. These three findings decreased energy savings. The realization rate is 88 percent.
Project ID 210379: A large industrial facility replaced interior linear fluorescent lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team updated fixture wattages to their DLC-certified values, slightly
increasing energy savings. The realization rate is 102 percent.
Project ID 210516: An agricultural building replaced interior incandescent lighting, exterior metal halide lighting, and external high-pressure sodium lighting with LED lighting. The evaluation team conducted an on-site visit. No pole-mounted fixtures were found, but all other fixture types and quantities were confirmed. Fixture wattages were also updated to their DLC-certified values, increasing energy savings. The realization rate is 101 percent.
3.2.2 Non-Lighting
Non-lighting projects account for seven percent of the 2021 Retrofits offering savings. The sample included nine projects which accounted for less than 12 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours and less than 2 percent of the overall program savings. Six projects were related to HVAC and HVAC control retrofits, two projects were related to food service equipment, and one project was related to compressed air equipment. Table 7 shows that the realization rate for the savings claimed is 100
percent for the sampled projects.
Table 7: PY2021 Non-Lighting Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
200515 8,556 8,556 100.0%
200582 146,097 146,097 100.0%
210228 36,544 36,544 100.0%
210230 4,108 4,108 100.0%
210279 26,625 26,625 100.0%
210422 58,957 58,957 100.0%
210444 47,450 47,450 100.0%
210499 2,432 2,432 100.0%
210631 2,106 2,106 100.0%
Overall 332,874 332,874 100.0%

15 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Overall, the evaluation team found that the documentation provided was adequate to justify savings claims; however, the provision of calculation sheets and equipment nameplate photos would support
more robust savings verifications.
Project ID 200515: This retailer installed a new 5-ton air conditioning unit and HVAC controls (demand-controlled ventilation and economizer). The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy
savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 200582: This religious building installed HVAC controls (optimum start and optimum stop,
DCV, and supply air temperature reset) on a retrofit packaged rooftop system. The evaluation
team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210228: The customer installed HVAC controls (optimum start and optimum stop) on a
retrofit packaged rooftop system. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210230: The business installed one standard electric oven and nine auto-close doors on reach-in coolers and freezers. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for
the auto-close doors and convection oven. The oven was determined to be ENERGY STAR and therefore was eligible for the RTF energy savings. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210279: This customer installed a variable frequency drive (VFD) on an HVAC fan. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210422: The business installed anti-sweat heater controls on coolers and freezers. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210444: This manufacturing facility installed a VFD on a 50 hp air compressor. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210499: This retailer replaced four air conditioning units. The evaluation team identified identical deemed energy savings for this project. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 210631: The business replaced three water-cooled heat pumps. The evaluation team
identified identical deemed energy savings for this project, resulting in a realization rate of 100 percent.
3.3 REVIEW OF PY2018 IMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the
recommendations made during the last impact evaluation of the 2018 program. The table below highlights Idaho Power's actions to address each of the previous impact recommendations.
Table 8. PY2018 CIEE Retrofits Program Recommendations
Category Key findings and recommendations PY2021 implementation Status
Post-installation verification
Consider requiring pictures of the motor nameplate for the motor connected to VFDs.
Idaho Power is not collecting nameplate photos as part of the application. Alternate documentation was instituted because the nameplate photo was
Complete

16 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Category Key findings and recommendations PY2021 implementation Status
deemed potentially unsafe for staff or participants. Alternate verification is in
place that satisfies the evaluation team.

17 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 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 three primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4. Each activity is explained below.
Figure 4. Process Evaluation Activities

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.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech read the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Policies and Procedures
Manual dated January 2021. The program logic model developed in 2018 was also reviewed for the entire CIEE program at the time, including Retrofits, New Construction, and Custom Projects offerings.
Tetra Tech explored the Idaho Power website for energy efficiency information for businesses and any linked documentation, including applications and instructions. Idaho Power staff also provided an overarching CIEE slide deck and general CIEE brochure to facilitate discussions with customers and contractors regarding all the CIEE offerings from Idaho Power. A program-specific Retrofits brochure was also reviewed, which details the incentives and requirements for the Retrofits offering.
Contractor Interviews
Customers work with installation contractors and equipment distributors for the energy-efficiency equipment that is eligible for Retrofits offering incentives. The Program Specialist provided a list of contractors associated with projects in 2021. Tetra Tech sampled 33 companies, and the Program Specialist provided contact information. All customers with email addresses were emailed and followed up with via telephone to complete interviews with 11 contractors that could provide feedback on the Retrofits offering incentives.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Idaho Power follows program management best practices with a program manual and logic model developed for the CIEE suite of programs. Communication between Idaho Power and contractors is working well, and contractors find the application process straightforward and easy to complete for their customers.
Program staff interviews Materials and outreach review Contractor interviews

18 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
4.2.1 Materials and Outreach Review
Policies and Procedures Manual
Tetra Tech reviewed 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 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 CIEE offerings from Idaho Power. In addition, it offers sufficient detail for each major offering (Custom, Retrofits, and New Construction), such as preapproval 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 Idaho Power contact information and revision history sections also benefit 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. Preapproval
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
Logic Model
Our review of the CIEE logic model, developed in 2018 in response to a previous evaluation
recommendation, shows that the Retrofits offering closely follows the program design and delivery steps laid out in the logic model. The major steps— (1) project identification and outreach, (2) preapproval applications, (3) Idaho Power project review, (4) project implementation, and (5) payment application—are all in line with the current program delivery as outlined in the program policies and procedures manual.
In addition, the program's short- and long-term outcomes are being realized, and measures such as certain lighting and compressed air equipment have been identified for a transition from Custom incentives to prescriptive under the Retrofits offering.

19 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
Outreach
The Retrofits offering continues to provide marketing in conjunction with all CIEE offerings. Methods
such as bill inserts, newsletters, airport advertising, radio, and social media messages communicate the benefits businesses can realize through Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs.
In addition, specific activities in 2021 for Retrofits included:
• seven workshops via webinar for program trade allies and large commercial customers to inform them of program updates;
• a virtual program presentation to the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
• a lighting controls training class via webinar for continuing education units (CEU) to trade allies and large customers;
• lighting postcards (sent to 1,400 businesses in October);
• a revision to the Retrofits brochure, splitting it into two: one specific to Idaho customers and the
other for Oregon customers;
• a redesign of the Retrofits website, so customers first choose which state the project will be
completed in, so they are directed to the incentives specific to that state;
• a pop-up ad placed on My Account in September (resulting in 2,859 views and 160 click-throughs from business customers);
• the development of a point-of-purchase display placed at the checkout counter at 60 lighting
suppliers to promote lighting incentives (the displays received very positive comments from suppliers);
• emails promoting the lighting incentives were followed up with by Idaho Power Customer Solutions Advisor phone calls to customers who received the email; and
• promoting Retrofits lighting incentives to electrical contractors, electrical distributors, and energy service companies by a contracted Lighting Trade Ally Outreach Specialist.
The Idaho Power website was explored for energy efficiency information for businesses and any linked documentation, including applications and instructions. The selection of state and then Retrofits offering information was easy to follow.
Since most of the initial marketing and outreach are done as an overarching CIEE program, Idaho
Power staff provided (1) the overarching CIEE slide deck and (2) the general CIEE brochure that staff use to facilitate discussions with customers and contractors regarding all CIEE offerings from Idaho Power. A program-specific Retrofits brochure was also reviewed, which details the incentives and
requirements for the Retrofits offering of the CIEE program.
All slides and brochures are visually appealing and provide good information on what is offered through the CIEE program. The Retrofits brochure provides the specific information needed for customers or
contractors interested in applying for incentives through the program.

20 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
4.2.2 Interview Contractors
A mix of 33 contractor firms was contacted from a list provided by Idaho Power; interviews were completed with 11 of them in August and September 2022. Three were compressed-air businesses
working with engineering firms, three were electrical or lighting distributors, three were installers, and two were design firms. All primarily work with C&I customers, with little residential work.
The interviewed contractors have all worked with Idaho Power programs for several years. At least five
also have experience with the Custom or New Construction offerings of the CIEE program. Most contractors work with other firms to deliver program services to customers, such as engineering firms and equipment distributors working with installation contractors.
Communication
Contractors we spoke with unanimously felt they were getting the information they needed about the Retrofits offering. Email notifications have been working well for everyone. In addition, at least five
contractors mentioned having the Program Specialist's phone number and contacting her directly for assistance. Four contractors thought the pre-pandemic in-person meetings were beneficial for the information distributed at the meeting and the interaction with Idaho Power and other contractor staff.
All this outreach explains the high level of contractor awareness regarding the Retrofits offering. Although customers are not as aware of the offering, according to the contractors we spoke with, the contractors and suppliers introduce the Retrofits offering incentives to their customers during the project design phase, sales process, or service calls.
There was substantial overlap in contractor use of CIEE programs, such as Custom and New Construction options, along with Retrofits. When Idaho Power talks with contractors, they use an overview brochure that summarizes the CIEE programs, then discussions focus on specific contractor services. While contractors feel knowledgeable about the incentives available, they understand that
customers are not as knowledgeable. A couple of contractors suggested that a comprehensive summary of the programs for them to share with customers may be helpful as they discuss incentive options. Once customers were aware of the Retrofits offering incentives, contractors felt that it assisted
in motivating customers to purchase energy-efficient equipment.
Applications
Most suppliers and larger companies complete the application for the customer or smaller contractors
they work with as a customer benefit. Only one contractor thought the $1,500 preapproval threshold was limiting and suggested a shift to $2,500. In contrast, a couple of contractors completed preapprovals for all of their projects, even if they were less than $1,500, to ensure the project would qualify the customer for an incentive.
Three of the contractors interviewed think that Idaho Power's application process is one of the easiest compared with other programs they have experienced. Most have never had an application declined,
but a couple reported checks on savings compared with usage, resulting in adjustments to reported savings and incentives paid.. Idaho Power confirmed that this is a quality control check they instituted to ensure project savings on applications are less than the consumption of the business.

"Their lighting tool is exceptional, they’ve made it very streamlined.
I’ve worked with others and IPC’s is probably the best."
Most customers receive their incentive checks directly. However, contractors are flexible and will

21 Idaho Power C&I Retrofits – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 30, 2022
discount an invoice by the incentive amount if the customer prefers that option. Six of the contractors say at least 90 percent of the incentives go to customers; for two others, it was about 50 percent.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction with the Retrofits offering of the CIEE program is high. When asked how they would rate the Retrofits offering on a five-point scale, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, eight of
the contractors rated the program a 4 or 5. Nobody we spoke with was dissatisfied.
The contractors we spoke with had few suggestions for improving the Retrofits offering. Most feel that the program successfully serves large C&I customers with high operating hours (closer to 24/7).
However, a couple of the contractors were concerned that it is more difficult to find opportunities for customers with moderate operating hours like office buildings or retail. Idaho Power staff are aware of this concern and continue investigating options for customers with fewer hours of operation that want to implement energy-efficient projects, particularly new LED fixtures.
COVID-19
COVID-19 has not had a prolonged adverse effect on the contractors we interviewed. However, there
were a couple of contractors that worked with Retrofits projects in the past that retired or closed their businesses. Although there have been supply delays, contractors felt that customers are adjusting to them.
The primary disruption from the pandemic mentioned by contractors was having to work around customer meetings using virtual tools such as Webex and Zoom. Contractors prefer to meet face-to-face with customers. They also appreciated the in-person meetings and training sponsored by Idaho Power to update them on the CIEE programs. They found those meetings useful and a good source of information and interaction. All the firms felt it would be good to continue meetings to discuss program requirements and get new firms up to speed.

Idaho Power
Company 2021 Home Energy
Idaho Power Company
2021 Home Energy Report
Program Impact Evaluation
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 BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUBMITTED ON: SEPTEMBER 26, 2022

ii
Prepared by:
Sedge Lucas
Melissa Kosla
Adam Thomas

iii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the staff at Idaho Power Company for their time and effort in contributing to the
evaluation of the 2021 Home Energy Report Program. This evaluation was conducted with regular
coordination with staff at Idaho Power Company, who provided quick feedback and turnaround to the
requests of the evaluation team as well as open and forthright insights into the operations of the
program.

iv
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 3
2 Home Energy Report Program ............................................................................................... 6
2.1 Program Background .......................................................................................... 7
2.2 Data Provided ..................................................................................................... 9
3 Impact Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Glossary of Terminology .................................................................................. 10
3.2 Step 1: Data Preparation and Cleaning ............................................................ 10
3.3 Step 2: Validity Testing ..................................................................................... 11
3.4 Step 3: Propensity Score Matching .................................................................. 12
3.5 Step 4: Linear Regression Modeling ................................................................. 12
3.6 Step 5: Double Count Savings Approach .......................................................... 14
3.7 Step 6: Demand Reduction Estimation ............................................................ 15
3.8 Step 7: Attrition Analysis Approach ................................................................. 18
4 Impact Evaluation Results .................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Data Preparation and Cleaning ........................................................................ 18
4.2 Validity Testing Results .................................................................................... 19
4.3 Propensity Score Matching Results .................................................................. 23
4.4 Double Counting Analysis Results .................................................................... 26
4.5 Linear Regression Modeling Results ................................................................ 27
4.6 Demand Reductions ......................................................................................... 52
4.7 Attrition Analysis Results ................................................................................. 54
4.8 Additional Research ......................................................................................... 56

v
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 IPC HER Participants by County ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 4-1 T5 Average Daily Usage Before Matching ................................................................... 24
Figure 4-2 T5 Average Daily Usage After Matching ...................................................................... 25
Figure 4-3 T1 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments .......................... 30
Figure 4-4 T2 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments .......................... 34
Figure 4-5 T3 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments .......................... 38
Figure 4-6 T4 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments .......................... 42
Figure 4-7 T5 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments .......................... 46
Figure 4-8 T6 PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments ..................................... 50
Figure 4-9 Typical Annual Load Profile ......................................................................................... 53
Figure 4-10 Typical Daily Load Profile ........................................................................................... 53
Figure 4-11 PY2021 Monthly Moveout Rates by Group ............................................................... 56
Figure 4-12 T1 Year-After-Year Savings ........................................................................................ 58
Figure 4-13 T2 Year-After-Year Savings ........................................................................................ 58
Figure 4-14 T3 Year-After-Year Savings ........................................................................................ 59
Figure 4-15 T4 Year-After-Year Savings ........................................................................................ 59
Figure 4-16 T5 Year-After-Year Savings ........................................................................................ 60
Figure 4-17 T6 Year-After-Year Savings ........................................................................................ 60
Figure 4-18 Proportion of Households with Missing Benchmarks ............................................... 63

vi
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program ............................. 1
Table 1-2 Summary of HER Program Savings During PY2021 ......................................................... 3
Table 2-1: Summary of Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program Groups ............... 6
Table 2-2: Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program Group Size ............................... 7
Table 2-3: Summary of Proposed Group Organization ................................................................... 7
Table 3-1 Weighted Treatment and Control Customers .............................................................. 11
Table 4-1 Treatment Customers by Restriction ............................................................................ 19
Table 4-2 T1 Group T-Test Results ................................................................................................ 20
Table 4-3 T2 Group T-Test Results ................................................................................................ 20
Table 4-4 T3 Group T-Test Results ................................................................................................ 21
Table 4-5 T4 Group T-Test Results ................................................................................................ 21
Table 4-6 T5 Group T-Test Results ................................................................................................ 22
Table 4-7 T6 Group T-Test Results ................................................................................................ 22
Table 4-8 PSM Customer Matches, T5 Group ............................................................................... 24
Table 4-9 PSM Covariate Summary, T5 ......................................................................................... 25
Table 4-10 T5 Post Matching T-Test of Difference in Usage by Month ........................................ 26
Table 4-11 PY2021 Downstream Double Counting Results .......................................................... 27
Table 4-12 Regression Parameters ............................................................................................... 27
Table 4-13 T1 Group PY2021 Regression Results ......................................................................... 29
Table 4-14 T1 Group Model Fit ..................................................................................................... 29
Table 4-15 T1 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary ............................................................ 31
Table 4-16 T1 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings ....................................................................... 31
Table 4-17 T1 Group Total Program Year Savings ........................................................................ 31
Table 4-18 T2 Group PY2021 Regression Results ......................................................................... 33
Table 4-19 T2 Group Model Fit ..................................................................................................... 33
Table 4-20 T2 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary ............................................................ 35
Table 4-21 T2 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings ....................................................................... 35
Table 4-22 T2 Group Total Program Year Savings ........................................................................ 35
Table 4-23 T3 PY2021 Regression Results .................................................................................... 37
Table 4-24 T3 Group Model Fit ..................................................................................................... 37

vii
Table 4-25 T3 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary ............................................................ 39
Table 4-26 T3 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings ....................................................................... 39
Table 4-27 T3 Group Total Program Year Savings ........................................................................ 39
Table 4-28 T4 Group PY2021 Regression Results ......................................................................... 41
Table 4-29 T4 Group Model Fit ..................................................................................................... 41
Table 4-30 T4 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary ............................................................ 43
Table 4-31 T4 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings by Program Year ........................................... 43
Table 4-32 T4 Group Total Program Year Savings by Evaluation Period ...................................... 43
Table 4-33 T5 Group PY2021 Regression Results ......................................................................... 45
Table 4-34 T5 Group Model Fit ..................................................................................................... 45
Table 4-35 T5 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary ............................................................ 47
Table 4-36 T5 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings ....................................................................... 47
Table 4-37 T5 Group Total Program Year Savings ........................................................................ 47
Table 4-38 T6 Group PY2021 Regression Results ......................................................................... 49
Table 4-39 T6 Group Model Fit ..................................................................................................... 49
Table 4-40 T6 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary ............................................................ 51
Table 4-41 T6 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings by Program Year ........................................... 51
Table 4-42 T6 Group Total Program Year Savings by Evaluation Period ...................................... 51
Table 4-43 PY2021 Program Savings Summary ............................................................................ 52
Table 4-44 Demand Reductions by Group .................................................................................... 54
Table 4-45 Program Reallocation Rates by Program Year ............................................................ 55
Table 4-46 PY2021 Moveout Rates by Group ............................................................................... 55
Table 4-47 T5 Year-After-Year Savings ......................................................................................... 57
Table 4-48 T5 Contribution to 2021 Program Savings .................................................................. 57
Table 4-49 Customer Generation Conversion by Group .............................................................. 61
Table 4-50 Benchmarking Flags Summary .................................................................................... 62

1 Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) effort of the 2021
program year (PY2021) Home Energy Report program for Idaho Power Company (IPC). The evaluation was
administered by ADM Associates, Inc (herein referred to as the “Evaluators”).
The Evaluators estimated the energy impacts of the Home Energy Report Program through a usage
analysis with linear regression and statistically valid comparison groups. The Evaluators collected data
for the evaluation through review of program materials, acquisition of program tracking data, and
collection of historical energy consumption data. Table 1-1 summarizes the number of residential
customers the Home Energy Reports were deployed to in the IPC service area since program inception.
This table presents the original customer counts in each treatment and control group (group), including
control customers in groups T1-T5 that were reassigned to group T6 in 2020.
Table 1-1 Summary of Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program
Group Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
T1 7,900 16,558
T2 5,826 5,826
T3 8,501 49,727
T4 4,101 46,191
T5 6,501 75,801
T6 108,498 14,744
Total 141,327 208,847

The Evaluators present positive and statistically significant savings estimates for all groups evaluated.
Executive Summary Idaho Power Company Impact Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 2
Table 1-2 provides a summary of evaluated savings of the IPC Home Energy Report program for the 2021
calendar year. The table presents the average annual household savings estimate and the program savings
estimate for each group. During PY2021, the average annual household savings was 172 kWh with a total
program energy savings of 18,386,281 kWh and total demand reductions of 2,275.19 kW. The Home
Energy Report Program displayed a realization rate of 109.65% compared to the expected savings of
16,767,446 kWh for the 2021 program year.

Executive Summary Idaho Power Company Impact Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 3
Table 1-2 Summary of HER Program Savings During PY2021
Group
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Average Annual
Household
Savings (kWh)
Total Program
Savings (kWh)
Total
Program
Demand
Reductions
(kW)
T1 4,949 243.92 1,207,146 149.32
T2 4,320 297.71 1,286,194 159.09
T3 5,024 263.69 1,324,882 163.97
T4 2,356 262.99 619,579 76.68
T5 1,646 510.58 840,397 104.01
T6 88,827 147.57 13,108,083 1,622.13
Total 107,122 171.64 18,386,281 2,275.19
*The Evaluators used the weighted number of active treatment customers in 2021 to produce ex-post measure savings
1.1 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Evaluators offer the following conclusions and recommendations for consideration in planning future
program cycles.
1.1.1 Conclusions
◼ The Evaluators estimated Home Energy Report Program savings for Idaho Power Company
through usage analysis of randomized control trial (RCT) groups and matched control groups.
The Evaluators also estimated demand reductions for each group. The Evaluators found positive
annual savings that are statistically significant for all groups in PY2021.
◼ Due to low propensity for energy savings for the T5 group, the group stopped receiving reports
in April 2020. Despite this, Evaluators included participants who had been a part of this group in
their 2021 usage analysis. Overall savings including and excluding these T5 persistence savings
are outlined below.
◼ The Evaluators verified 17,545,884 kWh savings for PY2021 for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T6. When
including the T5 persistence savings, the Evaluators verified 18,386,281 kWh savings for PY2021.
The Home Energy Report Program displayed a realization rate of 109.65% compared to the
expected savings of 16,767,446 kWh for the 2021 program year.
◼ All evaluated groups displayed average annual electric savings between 0.99% and 5.21% of
annual billed use in PY2021. Typical behavioral programs display average annual electric savings
between 1% and 3%. Therefore, savings verified in PY2021 meet or exceed those typically
displayed in behavioral programs. The Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program
continues to meet or exceed typical behavioral program savings expectations for each
consecutive program year.
◼ The T5 group stopped receiving reports in April 2020 because the program implementer did not
detect statistically significant savings during the pilot period of August 2017 through December
2019. ADM conducted evaluation efforts to confirm whether this group displays statistically
significant savings in the 2021 program year. For the 2021 program year evaluation of this
group, an ad-hoc counterfactual group was created via propensity score matching due to
Executive Summary Idaho Power Company Impact Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 4
invalidity of the original RCT groups. Natural attrition may have caused the group or a portion of
the group to no longer be statistically comparable in the pre-period(before the household starts
receiving home energy reports) . The Evaluators employed propensity score matching using the
nearest match algorithm at a one-to-one matching ratio and had a considerable pool of control
customers to draw upon. The Evaluators selected a group that passed equivalency testing for all
12 pre-period months. This group was employed in regression analysis to estimate T5 group
persistence savings. In order to ensure no double counting of observable savings from the
regression results, the Evaluators summarize and remove other program savings from the
resulting regression results, attributable to customers who also participated in IPC’s Home
Energy Report Program. The Evaluators estimated total other program savings as the amount of
savings claimed through all other residential programs offered through Idaho Power Company.
The Evaluators estimated downstream double counted savings at -81,444 kWh for PY2021. This
contributed to a reduction of total program savings by 0.44%. This is in line with expectations
that double counted savings range between -2% and 2% reductions to total program savings for
a behavioral program. Each estimated amount was parsed by year and removed from the
estimated savings from the regression results.
◼ The Evaluators estimated demand reductions for each group in 2021. The Evaluators verified a
total of 2,275.19 kW reduction due to the Home Energy Report Program.
◼ The Evaluators conducted attrition analysis. The total attrition for the program since inception is
43.4% for the treatment group and 58.6% for the control group. This number is expected to be
large due to the number of years the program has been deployed; T1 and T3-T5, for example,
have all been deployed for over 4 years. To calculate this overall attrition, it was assumed that
customers maintained their initial treatment assignment, unless they moved out after being
reassigned to group 6. The Evaluators found the individual group attrition rates in 2021 to range
between 0.0% and 8.7%. The T6 group displays the largest attrition of 8.4% and 8.7% for
treatment and control, respectively. This may be due to the COVID-19 pandemic or group
stabilization after its initiation in June 2020. That is, the T6 treatment and control groups consist
of customers with household behaviors different than those of T1 through T5. The attrition rate
indicates that the customers in T6 either have a naturally high attrition rate, or responded to the
COVID-19 pandemic with a higher rate of moveouts than other groups.
◼ In 2020, IPC made the decision to stop sending reports to customers who had transitioned from
the residential rate schedule (I01) to the customer generation rate schedule (I06). The
Evaluators attempted to estimate incremental group savings due to the exclusion of these
customers in the analysis. The Evaluators found that when the customer generation customers
were removed from each of the groups, the groups no longer remained valid between
treatment and control groups. Due to these findings, the Evaluators are unable to provide
incremental household savings estimates with and without the customer generation rate
schedule conversion customers. The Evaluators recommend that IPC continue to include these
customers in the T1 through T6 groups and refrain from reallocating them to another treatment
group. This will ensure that all legacy groups remain statistically valid and evaluable.
◼ The Evaluators explored the benchmarking flags aggregated and used by the implementer for
use in the Home Energy Report messaging. Because nearly all of IPC’s residential customer base
Executive Summary Idaho Power Company Impact Evaluation Report
Executive Summary 5
is currently designated to either a treatment or control group, the lack of household
characteristics in this benchmarking dataset provide no barriers for participation in the program.
The Evaluators recommend that if a group is designed for the program in the future, that the
lack of benchmarking characteristics is not used as a prerequisite for participation.
1.1.2 Recommendations
◼ The Evaluators recommend that IPC and the implementer continue to prioritize the validity of
each treatment and control group in order to maintain ability to estimate program savings.
Previous changes throughout the program have resulted in maintenance of group validity due to
additional steps relating to randomization, validity checks, and prioritization of statistical
validity. The Evaluators recommend IPC continue such efforts to ensure future program savings
are evaluable and quantifiable.
◼ Although the pilot phase of the program indicated that low to medium annual energy users
displayed low propensity for energy savings, the Evaluators found that these users (group T5)
have displayed high persistence savings in recent years. Therefore, the Evaluators recommend
that IPC allow customers with low to medium annual energy use to be eligible for participation
in the program for any and all future group expansions.
◼ The Evaluators recommend that IPC continue to include customers that have converted from I01
rate schedule to I06 rate schedule in the T1 through T6 groups and refrain from reallocating
them to another treatment group. This will ensure that all legacy groups remain statistically
valid and evaluable.
◼ The Evaluators recommend that if a group is designed for the program in the future, that the
lack of benchmarking characteristics is not used as a prerequisite for participation. This will
ensure that the maximum number of customers are eligible for the Home Energy Report
Program and therefore the program retains higher potential for total program energy savings.

2 Home Energy Report Program
The IPC’s Home Energy Report Program began providing Home Energy Reports (HERs) in 2017 to a
portion of residential customers. The program was designed to provide information to residential
customers intended to encourage behavioral changes that result in reduced billed energy consumption.
The household receives personalized information about their own kWh consumption and comparison to
a group of neighboring households energy consumption. Also included on the reports is information on
other IPC energy efficiency programs to encourage additional home improvements towards reduced
energy usage. This normative information on electric usage and targeted tips on energy saving behaviors
is aimed to reduce the participant household’s energy consumption.
Since the launch of a pilot program in August 2017 with three groups (T3-T5), the program had
expanded into a total of six groups. A description of each of these groups along with their initial
intervention date is outlined in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Summary of Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program Groups
Group Description Customer Type Intervention Date
T1 Winter Heating Group Customers with high winter use (electric heating)
added in Year 1 of the pilot December 2017
T2 Winter Heating Group Customers with high winter use (electric heating)
added in Year 2 of the pilot December 2018
T3 Year-Round Group Customers with high year-round energy use added
in Year 1 of the pilot August 2017
T4 Year-Round Group Customers with medium year-round energy use
added in Year 1 of the pilot August 2017
T5 Year-Round Group Customers with low year-round energy use added
in Year 1 of the pilot August 2017
T6 Expansion Group Expansion customers based on eligibility criteria
determined after the pilot June 2020
The program employs the third-party implementation contractor, Aclara. 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 pilot year one. Year two of the pilot was extended
from August 2019 through February 2020 to ensure continuity of treatment. Subsequently, the HER
Program was expanded for 3.5 more years – through December 31, 2023. In 2020, the program was
expanded from approximately 25,000 customers to over 100,000 with a calculated savings of 10,428
MWh. The HER Pilot Program transitioned into a full program when the expansion group was
implemented in 2020.

Home Energy Report Program 7

Table 2-2 summarizes the size of the groups implemented in the Home Energy Report program within
the IPC service area.
Table 2-2: Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program Group Size
Group
Treatment Group Size Control Group Size
Number in
Group
Number at
EOY 2021
Number in
Group
Number at
EOY 2021
T1 7,900 5,625 16,558 7,566
T2 5,826 4,578 5,826 2,831
T3 8,501 5,948 49,727 18,455
T4 4,101 2,812 46,191 19,725
T5 6,501 5,022 75,801 75,536
T6 108,498 94,171 14,744 14,730
Total 141,327 118,156 208,847 138,843
The Evaluators estimated savings for Home Energy Report Program using a matched control group of non-
participating residences in IPC’s service territory. The Evaluators analyzed each of the groups treated
during the 2021 program year. The results are summarized on a calendar year basis (i.e., January through
December). Table 2-3 describes the evaluation period for each group and reporting period.
Table 2-3: Summary of Proposed Group Organization
Group Intervention
Date Pre-Period Post-Period

T1 December 2017 12/01/16 - 11/31/17
1/1/2021 to
12/31/2021

T2 December 2018 12/01/17 - 11/31/18
T3 August 2017 08/01/16 - 07/31/17
T4 August 2017 08/01/16 - 07/31/17
T5 August 2017 08/01/16 - 07/31/17
T6 June 2020 06/01/19 - 05/31/20
2.1 Program Background
This IPC Home Energy Report Program has been a joint effort between IPC, Aclara, and Aclara’s
subcontractor, Uplight, since its outset in August 2017. The program was implemented by
Aclara/Ecotagious from 2017 through 2019. Starting early 2020, the program has been implemented by
Uplight. Throughout this program’s implementation changes, DNV was employed as a third-party
consultant to ensure control groups remained randomized and valid against the treatment groups.
Initially, the implementors sent bimonthly energy reports to a subset of customers, while others
received seasonal energy reports (one report in each November, December, January, and February).
However, due to a lack of meaningful savings benefits from bimonthly reports, beginning in February
2020, IPC made the decision to begin sending quarterly reports to all current pilot participants.

Home Energy Report Program 8

Expansion participants received bi-monthly reports between June 2020 and February 2021 and then
started receiving quarterly reports from that point forward. In PY2020, most reports were delivered as
printed and mailed reports (99.5%), with the remaining reports delivered via email (0.05%).
In April 2020, the T5 group stopped receiving reports due to low energy savings during the group’s first
two pilot years. Given that this group could have a negative impact on program wide cost-effectiveness,
the implementers stopped sending reports to the group and removed treatment and control customers
from eligibility for selection in future expansion groups.
The most recent expansion group is T6 which was implemented in June 2020. DNV randomly removed
75,973 customers from the treatment group’s corresponding control groups (C1, C2, C3, and C4) to free
them up for possible treatment in T6. DNV determined how many customers could be removed from
these control groups to still maintain statistical significance in pre-period savings. This new expansion
group was created after participants passed eligibility screenings. Customers included for potential
selection of T6 customers were: (1) nonparticipants (customers that had never previously been selected
for T or C for any group in the program) and (2) the 75,973 control group customers removed by DNV-
GL. This potential pool totaled to 108,498 customers. A total of 107,088 of these customers were
designated to the group T6, after completing eligibility and benchmarking screenings. The addition of
this group led to a total of 125,216 treatment customers in PY2020.
Participant households in IPC’s HER program spanned 24 counties and 104 unique zip codes. Each zip
code had a mean of 2,700 participants, a median of 733, a minimum of 3 in 83250 and a maximum of
17,983 individuals in 83646. A map of IPC’s HER service area is outlined below in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1 IPC HER Participants by County

Impact Evaluation Approach 9

2.2 Data Provided
IPC provided the following data to support the analysis:
◼ Daily electric usage data from January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2021, that included customer kWh
usage for 271,439 participants;
◼ Customer mapping data that tracked intervention dates, groups, treatment statuses, evaluation
removal reasons/dates, and program removal reasons/dates for all participants;
◼ Customer home characteristic data that included geographical data on each house like the county
and zip code, basic home information including number of bedrooms, construction year, home
type, and square footage, as well as binary data on home amenities including AC and electric
space heating;
◼ Other program data that tracks yearly reported savings by program and measure for 130,694
participants.
3 Impact Evaluation Approach
This section describes the gross impact evaluation of the Home Energy Report program. The Evaluators
analyzed each of the groups treated during the 2021 program years.
The Evaluators used participant and control group usage data in the pre-period (before the household
starts receiving home energy reports) and in the post-period (after household starts receiving home
energy reports) to estimate program impact for each group as part of the Evaluator’s impact evaluation
for the Home Energy Report Program, as detailed in the Uniform Methods Project (UMP) behavioral
chapter by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory1. In addition, the Evaluators estimated joint
savings from other downstream energy efficiency programs offered to IPC’s residential customers.
The work effort was divided into six distinct steps:
1. Data preparation and cleaning;
2. Validity testing of remaining treatment and control groups during the baseline period;
3. Create matched ad-hoc control group via propensity score matching for groups where validity
was compromised;
4. Estimate monthly and annual billed consumption differences between treatment and control
groups via regression modeling;
5. Estimate and remove joint savings from other programs;
6. Estimate demand reductions; and
7. Estimate program attrition.

1 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70472.pdf

Impact Evaluation Approach 10

The Evaluators explored several linear regression models for the impact evaluation of the Home Energy
Report program. Each approach involves panel linear regression models to estimate energy savings for
the treatment group. The explored methods required monthly usage data for the program participants
and a comparable counterfactual group. A designated control group was created by the Evaluators in
instances where the control group as designed does not pass equivalency checks.
The following types of linear free energy relationships (LFER) models were explored during the
evaluation of this program: Difference in Difference (D-in-D) with monthly controls, D-in-D with weather
controls, and Post-Program Regression (PPR) models. The UMP recommends D-in-D as it uses data from
the treatment and control groups during the pre- and post-period and therefore obtains more precise
savings estimates. The PPR model is a panel regression model that calculates the differences between
treatment and control consumption in the post‐program period. However, it includes controls on lagged
energy use for the same calendar month (for IPC, lagged bi-monthly) of the pre‐program period to
include in the model any small systematic differences in pre-treatment usage trends between the
participant and control customers.
The final model specification used to present the evaluated savings is the D-in-D with monthly controls,
as it displayed sufficient fitness and does not require forecasting with independent weather variables.
This specification is recommended by the UMP to obtain precise savings estimates by comparing the
treatment and control groups during the pre- and post-periods.
The Evaluators present savings estimates in three formats for each program year:
◼ Daily and annual energy savings per home
◼ Annual percent savings per home
◼ Program-level savings
3.1 Glossary of Terminology
The following section contains a glossary of terminology used throughout the report.
◼ Ex-ante Savings – Calculated savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
◼ Ex-post Savings – Savings estimates reported by an evaluator after the energy impact evaluation
has been completed.
◼ 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.
3.2 Step 1: Data Preparation and Cleaning
This section describes the steps the Evaluators performed to prepare data for the usage analysis. The
daily usage data the Evaluators received outlined the kWh energy usage by each participant from the
start of 2016 until the end of 2021. Using the unique SDP IDs (meter device locations) associated with
each participant, the Evaluators merged this usage data with both the customer mapping and housing
data. After producing this merged dataset, the Evaluators grouped the daily usage data into monthly

Impact Evaluation Approach 11

buckets, tracking both the average and total usage per month. These clean monthly data were then
filtered using the following criteria:
◼ Customer months with less than one billed day or more than the total number of days in that
calendar month were excluded from analysis.
◼ Customer months present after a customer’s move out date were excluded from analysis.
◼ Customer months with average daily usage greater than 200 kWh were excluded from analysis.
◼ Customer months with average daily usage less than 0 kWh were excluded.
◼ Pre-treatment data were limited to the 12 months prior to the treatment start date for each
experimental group.
◼ Customers without at least 9 of the 12 months of pre-period data, as well as at least 9 of the 12
months of post-period data were removed from analysis.
Although energy consumption data was provided at daily intervals aggregated from hourly meter data,
ADM aggregated this data into monthly format for use in this evaluation. For the remainder of the
report, the Evaluators will reference the usage data as having monthly intervals. The Evaluators
identified high outliers at the threshold of average daily kWh usage over 200 kWh per day. This level of
consumption is unrealistic for residential households and can reasonably be categorized as the result of
a reading error rather than a valid reading from a high user. The Evaluators aimed to remove error
reading rather than remove high and low users, as these subgroups contribute real behaviors to the
average savings estimate.
The usage data provided by IPC is summarized in the table below. Table 3-1 displays the original and final
number of Home Energy Report participants and nonparticipants used in the calculation of the
methodologies below.
Table 3-1 Weighted Treatment and Control Customers
Group
Original
Treatment
Customers
Original
Control
Customers
Weighted
Treatment
Customers 2021
Weighted
Control
Customers 2021
T1 7,900 16,558 4,949 1,222
T2 5,826 5,826 4,320 693
T3 8,501 49,727 5,024 2,994
T4 4,101 46,191 2,356 2,213
T5 6,501 75,801 1,646 36,480
T6 108,498 14,744 88,827 12,065
Total 141,327 208,847 107,122 55,667
After data preparation and cleaning, the Evaluators performed validity testing for all groups evaluated.
The details of this step are provided in the next section.
3.3 Step 2: Validity Testing
The method for evaluation requires the counterfactual group remains statistically valid for each
treatment group. Validity is tested by examining each energy consumption read in the pre-treatment

Impact Evaluation Approach 12

period for customers in each the treatment and control group. Each calendarized monthly is tested for
statistically significant differences using a simple two-tailed T-test. The evaluators performed
equivalency for each month between the provided RCT treatment group and the provided RCT control
group.
The Evaluators tested the validity of each RCT by completing t-tests for the average daily usage of each
of the pre-period months between the remaining treatment group and remaining control. If the pre-
period average daily usage rejected the null hypothesis at the 95% confidence interval for a number of
the 12 pre-period months, the RCT was considered invalid.
To gather the most reliable results, it is ideal to have a RCT. However, due to changes in program
implementation, the original RCT may not be feasible. For groups that do not pass equivalency testing,
the Evaluators performed propensity score matching (PSM) to create a post-hoc control group
comprising of participants that have not received home energy reports. The control group created
undergoes equivalency testing to confirm it is statistically comparable to the treatment group in pre-
period usage.
3.4 Step 3: Propensity Score Matching
Due to complications in program implementation or design (or as the result of significant participant
attrition), the RCT groups may have become invalid. Regression model analyses are unable to be run on
groups in which a statistically comparable control group is not defined. Therefore, in order to analyze
groups that have non-equivalent counterfactual groups, a post-hoc control group is required to be
created. The Evaluators created a statistically similar control group using propensity score matching
(PSM), a method that 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.
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. To create a post-hoc control group, the
Evaluators compiled usage data of all control participants from all groups to compare against treatment
households via quasi-experimental methods. This allowed the Evaluators to select from a large group of
similar households that have not received home energy reports. With this information, the Evaluators
matched the treatment group to a similar control group via seasonal pre-period usage. After matching, a
t-test was conducted for each month in the pre-period to help determine the success of PSM.
After creating a PSM control group, the group undergoes the same regression modeling as the
remaining statistically valid group. The regression specifications and details are summarized in the next
section.
3.5 Step 4: Linear Regression Modeling
The Evaluators utilized a linear regression model that compares the treatment group and valid
comparison group in a D-in-D regression model. The comparison control group used was either created
during the RCT design or was the result of propensity score matching conducted by the Evaluators. This
requires a successful validation test between the group’s treatment and comparison group. This

Impact Evaluation Approach 13

approach, with randomized control trial, is detailed in the UMP as a preferred method for evaluation of
opt-out behavioral programs. The following sections summarize the model specification the Evaluators
utilized to estimate impact savings for the program.
3.5.1 Difference-in-Difference Model Specification
The fixed-effects linear regression model specification contains customer-specific dummy variables to
account for exogenous heterogeneity that cannot be explicitly controlled for and is not relevant to the
estimation of program savings. The specification of customer specific effects allows the model to
capture much of the baseline differences across customers while obtaining reliable estimates of the
impact of the report.
The Evaluators fit a monthly fixed effects panel regression model to estimate daily consumption
differences between treatment and control households in each month. The model specifications used in
this analysis is described below.

Equation 3-1: Fixed-Effects Difference-in-Difference (D-in-D) Panel Regression Model Specification
𝐴𝐷𝐶𝑖𝑡=𝛼0 +𝛽1(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)𝑖𝑡+𝛽2(𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)𝑖𝑡+𝛽3(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡)𝑖𝑡
+𝛽4(𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡× 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡× 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)𝑖𝑡+𝜀𝑖𝑡
Where,
𝐴𝐷𝐶𝑖𝑡 = Estimated average daily consumption (dependent variable) in home i during period t
𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡 = Dummy variable indicating whether period t was in pre- or post- retrofit
𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖 = Dummy variable indicating whether household i was in treatment group or control group
𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑡 = Dummy variable indicating month during period t
𝜀𝑖𝑡 = Customer-level random error
𝛼0= The model intercept for home i
𝛽1−4 = Coefficients determined via regression
The coefficients 𝛽3 and 𝛽4 represent the average change in consumption between the treatment group
and the control group in the post-period. Monthly kWh savings are then taken by using the following
equation:
Equation 3-2: Monthly kWh Savings
𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑡= −1 ∗ 𝛽4𝑡∗𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠𝑡∗𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑡
Where:
𝑡 = a given month in the program year,
𝛽1𝑡 = the regression coefficient for the treatment effect of month 𝑡 in the post-period
𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠𝑡 = the number of days in the given month

Impact Evaluation Approach 14

𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑡 = the number of active participants in month 𝑡
Because the regression equation predicts average daily usage as a function of the treatment effect, and
the treatment indicator has been coded as “1”, the regression coefficient for the treatment effect of a
given month should be negative if savings occurs. Therefore, multiplying the savings calculation by -1
will correct the sign of the results.
3.6 Step 5: Double Count Savings Approach
Participants in both the treatment and control groups participate in other Idaho Power Company energy
efficiency programs. The IPC HER program reports may also increase the customer’s propensity to
participate in other programs. This additional participation is known as uplift. The HER sent to customers
includes information about other IPC incentives and programs, which may lead to customers adopting
more energy efficient upgrades for their home.
When a household participates in an efficiency program because of this encouragement, the utility
might count their savings twice: once in the regression-based estimate of HER program savings and
again in the estimate of savings for the other energy efficiency program. Although uplift rarely displays a
statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups, the UMP recommends
removing uplift from each group at the household level.
The double counted savings, whether positive or negative, are subtracted from the group’s savings
estimates from the regression analysis to get total verified savings. IPC’s double counted savings are
exclusively downstream. The following section details our proposed methodology for calculating those
savings.
3.6.1 Downstream
Downstream programs traditionally track installed measures at the customer level. IPC delivered
customer-level tracking data with verified savings estimates from other programs IPC offers to
customers in the HER program. The Evaluators included all residential IPC programs in the double
counting analysis.
The Evaluators corrected for cross-program participation that occurred after treatment began to the
extent that the treatment group participated at a higher rate than the control group. The Evaluators
estimated and subtracted savings from program uplift from the total program portfolio savings for each
program year. The double count savings were calculated on a per-household level for each treatment
group in each group as follows:
Equation 3-3 Double Count Specification
𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔= (𝑂𝑃 𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
−𝑂𝑃 𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙
)× # 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Where,
𝑂𝑃 𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡= Other program kWh per household in the treatment group

Impact Evaluation Approach 15

𝑂𝑃 𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 = Other program kWh per household in the control group
# 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑠𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = Total accounts in the treatment group
To estimate double counted program savings from downstream program uplift, the Evaluators:
1. Matched the HER program treatment and control group customers to the utility energy
efficiency program tracking data by customer ID or address
2. Calculated the savings per treatment group subject from efficiency uplift as the difference
between treatment and control groups in average efficiency program savings per subject
3. Multiplied that difference by the number of subjects who are in the treatment group
The Evaluators summarized and removed program uplift for each group and treatment status for each
of the other residential program offerings.
3.7 Step 6: Demand Reduction Estimation
The relationship between annual usage savings and peak demand savings has not been defined for
HERs. Program savings rely on hourly meter data provided by IPC. Although smart meter data (hourly
usage data) are available for IPC residential customers, the data delivery method was inadequate for
proper transfer of this high-resolution data. Therefore, the Evaluators utilized daily consumption data,
aggregated to monthly consumption data for each customer. Thus, the resolution of billing data
provided for analysis is unsuitable for the direct evaluation of peak demand savings.
However, it can be assumed that total monthly usage can be attributed to the usage of other residential
components (e.g., HVAC, lighting, etc.) and that any reduction in usage is proportional to the overall
usage of these components. Load factors are available for these components at an hourly resolution;
thus, the Evaluators have developed a model for predicting coincident peak demand savings from
component load factors from the gross energy savings calculated using the above methodology.
The demand reductions claimed through the AC Cool Credit Program displays no statistically significant
differences between the treatment and control groups. Therefore, the Evaluators did not remove
demand reductions claimed through the AC Cool Credit Program, as incremental kWh and kW savings
are unmeasurable between the groups.
3.7.1 Normalize kWh Usage
In order to increase the generalizability of the model, the Evaluators will first normalize the kWh savings
value predicted by the impact evaluation regression model into a percent savings value by dividing each
month’s savings by the total annual savings.
Equation 3-4 Monthly Savings Normalization Calculation
% 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟= 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑚𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑦⁄
Where,
𝑚 = Value for given program month m.

Impact Evaluation Approach 16

𝑦 = Value for given program year y.

3.7.2 Calculate Monthly Load Factors for Component Variables
The model assumes a linear relationship between the component variables and the percent savings
calculated above. Because load shape information is available for residential components at an hourly
resolution, the Evaluators can estimate the relationship between component load and percent savings in
order to estimate total demand savings. To make sure that the model is interpretable, hourly load
factors must be converted to monthly load factors. The Evaluators sourced hourly load data from the
U.S. Department of Energy Open Data Catalog2 of residential hourly load profiles. The database contains
hourly load profiles for all TMY3 locations in the United States. The specific location chosen for this
evaluation was the Boise International Airport.
3.7.3 Simple Regression
In order to determine the relationship between the percent savings and the component load factors, the
Evaluators ran a simple linear regression. Because the model is used to predict savings from known
variables, we hold the intercept constant at 0 to ensure that the majority of the variability will be
explained by the component load factors. The following equation displays an example regression
equation used to predict percent savings attributable to a higher resolution time period.
Equation 3-5 Percent Savings Prediction
% 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟= 𝛽1 × 𝑙𝑓𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ
Where,
𝑙𝑓= Load factor for each component variable of interest
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ = All end-uses combined
The regression coefficients for the above regression equation represent the relationship of each of the
component variables to percent savings. Because both independent and dependent variables are
calculated in units of months, the numerator of the regression weights are time invariant and can be
used to estimate the percentage of savings across any unit of time of interest in a year.

2 https://openei.org/doe-opendata/dataset/commercial-and-residential-hourly-load-profiles-for-all-tmy3-locations-in-the-
united-states

Impact Evaluation Approach 17

3.7.4 Demand Calculation
Coincidence peak load was estimated for the total electric load by summing the total electric load over
peak hours as defined by the IPC—non-weekend and non-holiday days between 1:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
for the months of June through August and non-weekend non-holiday days between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. for the months of September through May3. The following equation illustrates the calculation for
calculating the peak load factor.
Equation 3-6 Peak Load Factor Calculation
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑥= ∑𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑥
𝑛
𝑖=1

Where,
𝑥 = Component variable of interest (total electric load)
𝑖 = First peak hour for the entire annual peak period
𝑛 = Last peak hour for the entire annual peak period
Multiplying this value by the total annual savings will then generate the kWh savings that took place
during the peak period, as illustrated by Equation 3-7.
Equation 3-7 Energy Savings During Peak Period
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠=𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 ∙𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑥
Dividing this value by the total number of peak hours will generate coincident peak demand savings in
units of kW, as shown in Equation 3-8.
Equation 3-8 Peak Demand Savings
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑊 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠=𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝐴𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 × 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
As with gross usage savings, the Evaluators anticipates that some participants in the treatment group
will also participate in other IPC programs. The adjusted savings per month is an input for the demand
savings estimation with this method. The Evaluators adjust the savings per month by weighing the HVAC
measures by degree day.

3 https://www.idahopower.com/accounts-service/understand-your-bill/pricing/idaho-pricing/time-day-plan/frequently-
asked-questions/

Impact Evaluation Results 18

3.8 Step 7: Attrition Analysis Approach
The tracking of treatment and control households can be affected by either move-outs or opt-outs
(known collectively as ‘attrition’). If a household’s final bill was the end of the evaluated post-period, it is
considered a move out and bills occurring after moveout will be removed from the analysis. Opt-outs,
however, remain in the regression analysis, as the program savings estimated is the “intent-to-treat”
savings. It remains useful to estimate attrition to gather information on persistence of savings.
The cumulative level of both treatment and control move outs over the program life by month, group,
and treatment/control status for each program year was summarized by the Evaluators. This
information can be useful for IPC for the potential development of future HER program groups.
4 Impact Evaluation Results
This section provides the results of each portion of the impact evaluation. The Evaluators calculated the
percent savings per home by dividing the average annual energy savings estimated in the treatment group
by the average annual energy consumption from the control group for each program year. That value is
then adjusted for uplift from downstream measures. The program-level savings are calculated by
multiplying the average annual household impact estimate by the weighted number of active program
participants in the treatment group and after removing double counted savings, by program year.
4.1 Data Preparation and Cleaning
The Evaluators prepared and cleaned usage data provided by IPC. The following table represents the
unique number of customers per group and treatment group throughout the usage cleaning stages.

Impact Evaluation Results 19

Table 4-1 Treatment Customers by Restriction
Restriction
T1
Treatment
Customers
T2
Treatment
Customers
T3
Treatment
Customers
T4
Treatment
Customers
T5
Treatment
Customers
T6
Treatment
Customers
Mapping File 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Merged with billing data 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Remove intervention month 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Subset to 12 months pre and 12 months post 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Remove bills present after moveout date for each
customer 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Remove customers without at least 9 months pre or
9 months post 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Remove observations with greater than 200
kWh/day (outlier) 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Remove observations with negative consumption 7,900 5,826 8,501 4,101 6,501 108,498
Remove customers removed from evaluation due to
optimization, reallocation, moveout 4,964 4,336 5,030 2,356 1,646 88,884

As displayed in the table above, the cleaning steps removed very few customers from the analysis.
Although the cleaning steps displayed above had removed individual bills across a number of customers,
each customer still displayed 9 valid billing months in each the pre-period and post-period, and therefore
were retained in the analysis. However, the last step in the billing analysis removed 25% to 75% of
customers within each treatment group due to changes in implementation eligibility.
After data preparation and cleaning, the Evaluators performed validity testing for all groups evaluated.
The details of this step are provided in the next section.
4.2 Validity Testing Results
The remaining groups after usage data preparation and cleaning were tested for statistically significant
differences in usage between the treatment and control groups for each of the 12 pre-period months in
each group. The tables below detail differences and statistical significance between each group’s
treatment and control groups for each of the 12 months in the pre-period. The baseline months listed in
each table differ between each group due to differing intervention dates.

Impact Evaluation Results 20

Table 4-2 T1 Group T-Test Results
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Dec 2016 110.12 109.88 0.24 0.8110 -
Jan 2017 117.63 116.72 0.91 0.3684 -
Feb 2017 87.94 87.6 0.34 0.6937 -
Mar 2017 60.11 60.23 -0.12 0.8566 -
Apr 2017 52.06 52.28 -0.22 0.7169 -
May 2017 41.67 41.72 -0.05 0.9390 -
Jun 2017 42.55 42.26 0.29 0.6531 -
Jul 2017 55.49 55.59 -0.10 0.9049 -
Aug 2017 48.79 48.54 0.25 0.7394 -
Sep 2017 42.62 42.2 0.42 0.4695 -
Oct 2017 50.61 50.46 0.15 0.8170 -
Nov 2017 64.94 65.2 -0.26 0.7227 -
*Statistically significant if p<0.05
Table 4-3 T2 Group T-Test Results
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Dec 2017 97.01 97.19 -0.18 0.8737 -
Jan 2018 83.29 83.69 -0.40 0.7070 -
Feb 2018 83.85 84.43 -0.58 0.5991 -
Mar 2018 68.06 68.29 -0.23 0.8182 -
Apr 2018 47.87 47.84 0.03 0.9661 -
May 2018 34.55 34.10 0.45 0.4750 -
Jun 2018 35.35 35.42 -0.07 0.9198 -
Jul 2018 45.21 44.84 0.37 0.6923 -
Aug 2018 40.09 39.92 0.17 0.8370 -
Sep 2018 33.51 33.46 0.05 0.9347 -
Oct 2018 44.14 44.19 -0.05 0.9433 -
Nov 2018 72.04 73.07 -1.03 0.3127 -
*Statistically significant if p<0.05

Impact Evaluation Results 21

Table 4-4 T3 Group T-Test Results
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Aug 2016 53.95 53.95 0.00 0.9933 -
Sep 2016 37.90 37.67 0.23 0.5414 -
Oct 2016 34.56 34.51 0.05 0.8915 -
Nov 2016 37.07 37.20 -0.13 0.6947 -
Dec 2016 48.86 49.16 -0.30 0.5072 -
Jan 2017 48.37 48.55 -0.18 0.7000 -
Feb 2017 40.70 40.78 -0.08 0.8278 -
Mar 2017 34.94 35.12 -0.18 0.5901 -
Apr 2017 33.64 33.64 0.00 0.9946 -
May 2017 37.12 37.05 0.07 0.8590 -
Jun 2017 46.26 46.31 -0.05 0.9107 -
Jul 2017 65.65 65.07 0.58 0.3212 -
*Statistically significant if p<0.05
Table 4-5 T4 Group T-Test Results
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Aug 2016 36.99 37.43 -0.44 0.2336 -
Sep 2016 24.35 24.54 -0.19 0.3759 -
Oct 2016 22.82 22.89 -0.07 0.6889 -
Nov 2016 24.97 25.02 -0.05 0.8225 -
Dec 2016 33.35 33.01 0.34 0.3476 -
Jan 2017 33.45 32.80 0.65 0.1217 -
Feb 2017 27.78 27.18 0.60 0.0453 *
Mar 2017 23.83 23.48 0.35 0.1217 -
Apr 2017 22.73 22.42 0.31 0.1614 -
May 2017 24.52 24.44 0.08 0.7501 -
Jun 2017 31.43 31.67 -0.24 0.4316 -
Jul 2017 48.09 48.51 -0.42 0.4109 -
*Statistically significant if p<0.05

Impact Evaluation Results 22

Table 4-6 T5 Group T-Test Results
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Aug 2016 29.45 27.67 1.78 <0.0000 *
Sep 2016 19.03 17.79 1.24 <0.0000 *
Oct 2016 17.98 16.92 1.06 <0.0000 *
Nov 2016 19.70 18.72 0.98 <0.0000 *
Dec 2016 25.70 24.64 1.06 0.0001 *
Jan 2017 25.60 24.62 0.98 0.0010 *
Feb 2017 21.65 20.76 0.89 0.0001 *
Mar 2017 18.83 17.96 0.87 <0.0000 *
Apr 2017 18.24 17.15 1.09 <0.0000 *
May 2017 19.67 18.37 1.30 <0.0000 *
Jun 2017 25.84 24.09 1.75 <0.0000 *
Jul 2017 40.79 38.31 2.48 <0.0000 *
*Statistically significant if p<0.05
Table 4-7 T6 Group T-Test Results
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control
Group
Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Jun 2019 36.81 36.77 0.04 0.7989 -
Jul 2019 46.81 46.79 0.02 0.9479 -
Aug 2019 46.67 46.59 0.08 0.6814 -
Sep 2019 34.37 34.22 0.15 0.3093 -
Oct 2019 34.49 34.39 0.10 0.5898 -
Nov 2019 39.53 39.50 0.03 0.9085 -
Dec 2019 45.93 45.90 0.03 0.9029 -
Jan 2020 43.39 43.33 0.06 0.8145 -
Feb 2020 42.38 42.34 0.04 0.8819 -
Mar 2020 36.08 36.03 0.05 0.8004 -
Apr 2020 33.57 33.55 0.02 0.9181 -
May 2020 33.67 33.64 0.03 0.8235 -
*Statistically significant if p<0.05
The RCT for the groups T1-T3 and T6 remained balanced at the 95% confidence level in the entire pre-
period. The T4 group meanwhile had a statistically significant difference for one month (February 2017);
however, the group as a whole was considered balanced. The Evaluators note that up to two months

Impact Evaluation Results 23

rejected of the 12 pre-period months is allowed for validity testing. In contrast, there was a significant
difference between the treatment and controls groups for the T5 group for all pre-period months.
Therefore, the Evaluators continued with the control group for the T1-T4 and T6 groups and employed
propensity score matching in an attempt to create an ad-hoc control group for the T5 group. The result
of the propensity score matching is displayed in the section below.
4.3 Propensity Score Matching Results
The Evaluators created a valid post-hoc control group for the T5 group via quasi-experimental methods.
Quasi-experimental methods are required when the control group has not been randomly assigned as it
would be in a RCT.
The Evaluators created a statistically similar control group using propensity score matching (PSM), a
method that allows the Evaluators to find the most similar household based on the customers’
consumption trends in the pre-period, specifically covariates for average summer, winter, fall, and
spring pre-period usage were used and verified with statistical difference testing.
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. To create a post-hoc control group, the
Evaluators compiled usage data of all control participants from all groups to compare against treatment
households via quasi-experimental methods. This allowed the Evaluators to select from a large group of
similar households that have not received home energy reports. With this information, the Evaluators
matched the treatment group to a similar control group on the following variables:
◼ Pre-period spring usage
◼ Pre-period summer usage
◼ Pre-period fall usage
◼ Pre-period winter usage
◼ Customer zip code
After matching, a t-test was conducted for each month in the pre-period to help determine the success
of PSM.
The Evaluators employed propensity score matching using the nearest match algorithm at a one-to-one
matching ratio and had a considerable pool of control customers to draw upon, as shown in Table 4-8.
The matching ratio defines the number of control customers to be matched to one treatment customer.
In addition, the Evaluators allowed replacement of customers, essentially allowing the algorithm to
select a control customer for more than one unique treatment customer. The following tables display
the number of customers in the resulting matched dataset for the T5 group.

Impact Evaluation Results 24

Table 4-8 PSM Customer Matches, T5 Group
Status Control Treated
All 36,726 1,646
Matched 1,589 1,646
Unmatched 34,911 0
Discarded 226 0
The following figures display the average customer usage between treatment group and control group
before and after propensity score matching against the aggregate for all control customers.
Figure 4-1 T5 Average Daily Usage Before Matching

Impact Evaluation Results 25

Figure 4-2 T5 Average Daily Usage After Matching

The difference between the groups for each month decreases after propensity score matching, and the
difference between the groups nears 0 for all months for the T5 group, indicating the treatment and
control groups are much more similar in terms of energy usage across the pre-period.
The tables below present the propensity score covariate summary of pre-period usage for treatment
and control customers before and after matching for each of the groups in which propensity score
matching was conducted. The standardized mean difference both prior to and after matching is around
1 kWh per day for all covariates.
Table 4-9 PSM Covariate Summary, T5
Variable
Before Matching After Matching
Mean
Treated
Mean
Control
Standardized
Mean
Difference
Mean
Treated
Mean
Control
Standardized
Mean
Difference
Distance 0.047 0.043 0.215 0.047 0.047 0.001
Pre-period Winter Usage 24.317 23.341 0.099 24.317 24.303 0.001
Pre-period Spring Usage 18.915 17.824 0.188 18.915 18.897 0.003
Pre-period Summer Usage 32.026 30.023 0.179 32.026 32.177 -0.013
Pre-period Fall Usage 18.903 17.809 0.198 18.903 18.822 0.015
The tables below provide the results for a t-test which helps determine the success of matching for each
group. The test measures whether there are statistically significant differences in average daily kWh
usage between the treatment and control groups in the pre-period by month. Statistically significant

Impact Evaluation Results 26

differences occur when the P-Value is less than 0.05 at the 95% significance level. As displayed in the
table below, the P-Value is much greater than 0.05 for all 12 pre-period months. This result further
indicates propensity score matching performed satisfactorily, as there were no instances for a rejection
of the null hypothesis for any of the pre-period months. Therefore, the Evaluators accept this group as a
viable match for the T5 group.
Table 4-10 T5 Post Matching T-Test of Difference in Usage by Month
Pre-Period
Month
Treatment
Group Average
Daily Usage
(kWh/day)
Control Group
Average Daily
Usage
(kWh/day)
Average
Daily
Usage
Difference
(kWh/day)
P-value
Statistically
Significant
Difference
Aug 2016 29.45 29.62 -0.17 0.6481 -
Sep 2016 19.03 18.95 0.08 0.7004 -
Oct 2016 17.98 17.93 0.05 0.7981 -
Nov 2016 19.7 19.59 0.11 0.6417 -
Dec 2016 25.7 25.79 -0.09 0.8124 -
Jan 2017 25.6 25.55 0.05 0.9118 -
Feb 2017 21.65 21.57 0.08 0.7819 -
Mar 2017 18.83 18.87 -0.04 0.8879 -
Apr 2017 18.24 18.16 0.08 0.7104 -
May 2017 19.67 19.67 0 0.9826 -
Jun 2017 25.84 25.81 0.03 0.9369 -
Jul 2017 40.79 41.1 -0.31 0.5819 -
After creating a PSM control group, the Evaluators fit a D-in-D and PPR model presented in Equation 3-1
to estimate daily consumption differences between homes that received home energy reports and
home that did not receive home energy reports.
4.4 Double Counting Analysis Results
Participants in both the treatment and control groups participate in other Idaho Power Company energy
efficiency programs. The double counted savings, defined in the methodology, whether positive or
negative, are subtracted from the group’s gross savings estimates from the regression analysis to get
total verified savings. This section summarizes the results of the double counting analysis for
downstream programs.
4.4.1 Downstream
IPC delivered tracking data for 10 different programs offered to residential customers. The Evaluators
identified and summarized the average treatment customer, average control customer, and average
incremental savings attributed to the residential programs for each group. Table 4-11 displays the

Impact Evaluation Results 27

verified double counting savings to be subtracted from each group’s annual program savings for each
program year.
Table 4-11 PY2021 Downstream Double Counting Results
Group
Average
Treatment
Household
Daily
Savings
(kWh/day)
Average
Control
Household
Daily
Savings
(kWh/day)
Average
Incremental
Household
Daily
Savings
(kWh/day)
Average
Annual
Household
Savings
(kWh/year)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Downstream
Program
Double
Count
Savings
Contribution
to Total
Savings
T1 0.0337 0.0354 -0.0017 -0.6024 4,949 -2,990 -0.25%
T2 0.0230 0.0045 0.0186 6.7758 4,320 29,380 2.23%
T3 0.0067 0.0026 0.0041 1.5022 5,024 7,554 0.57%
T4 0.0033 0.0006 0.0027 0.9862 2,356 2,323 0.38%
T5 0.0018 0.0028 -0.0010 -0.3798 1,646 -625 -0.07%
T6 0.0083 0.0119 -0.0037 -1.3173 88,827 -117,087 -0.90%
Total 0.0769 0.0578 0.0191 6.9646 107,122 -81,444 -0.44%

PY2021 displays a total of -81,444 kWh in double counted savings, contributing a total of -0.44% towards
program savings. Therefore, the total program savings declined by 0.44% due to removal of double
counted savings. This estimate is in line with expectations that double counted savings contribute
between -2% and 2% towards total program savings for a behavioral program. The downstream double
counting values are estimated for 2021 other program participation and are subtracted from the
regression model results to estimate energy savings as a result of the Home Energy Report Program
offered by IPC.
4.5 Linear Regression Modeling Results
This section details the regression results of each of the evaluated groups. The T1, T2, T3, T4, and T6
groups were evaluated with the remaining RCT groups. The T5 group was evaluated with the matched
control group created via propensity score matching.
As discussed in the evaluation approach section, savings are determined through parameters. The
coefficients 𝛽3 and 𝛽4 which are defined again in Table 4-12, along with all the other model parameters.
Table 4-12 Regression Parameters
Variable Parameter Interpretation
Post B1 Average daily usage in the post-period
Post*Month B2 Average daily usage in month i
Treatment*Post B3 Average daily usage for the treatment group in the post-period
Treatment*Post*Month B4 Average daily usage in month i in the post-period

Impact Evaluation Results 28

Per-home results and percent savings by month and by program year are presented for each of the
analyzed groups. Joint savings attributable to IPC downstream programs were calculated and removed
to avoid double counting.
The Evaluators found all groups to display positive savings that are statistically significant, and each
model portrayed a sufficient fitness to the data.
4.5.1 T1 Group Results
This section summarizes the results of the persistence study evaluation for the T1 Group. In the table
below, the coefficient estimates for Treatment*Post terms (B3) are negative, indicating lower usage per
month in the post-period for treatment customers. In addition, these coefficients are statically
significant at the 95% level in both program years. The estimates for Treatment*Post*Month (B4) are all
positive. The Treatment*Post*Month coefficients are aggregated with the Treatment*Post coefficient,
which results in a negative value. This indicates positive energy savings for all months in 2021. Each of
the Treatment*Post*Monthly coefficients are statistically significant. This indicates a positive savings
effect for home energy report treatment at the 95% confidence interval.

Impact Evaluation Results 29

Table 4-13 T1 Group PY2021 Regression Results
Coefficient Estimate Std Error P Value 5% 95%
Post -6.44 0.2 <0.001 -6.76 -6.12
February -26.53 0.28 <0.001 -26.99 -26.07
March -53.2 0.28 <0.001 -53.66 -52.74
April -62.33 0.28 <0.001 -62.79 -61.87
May -72.55 0.28 <0.001 -73 -72.09
June -70.29 0.28 <0.001 -70.74 -69.83
July -58.01 0.28 <0.001 -58.47 -57.55
August -65.7 0.28 <0.001 -66.15 -65.24
September -72.26 0.28 <0.001 -72.71 -71.8
October -64.44 0.28 <0.001 -64.9 -63.98
November -49.29 0.28 <0.001 -49.75 -48.83
December -6.82 0.28 <0.001 -7.29 -6.36
Treatment*Post -24.7 0.37 <0.001 -25.31 -24.09
Treatment*Post*February 24.22 0.44 <0.001 23.5 24.94
Treatment*Post*March 32.11 0.44 <0.001 31.39 32.83
Treatment*Post*April 27.14 0.44 <0.001 26.43 27.86
Treatment*Post*May 28.24 0.44 <0.001 27.52 28.96
Treatment*Post*June 35.59 0.44 <0.001 34.87 36.31
Treatment*Post*July 30.54 0.44 <0.001 29.82 31.26
Treatment*Post*August 26.83 0.44 <0.001 26.11 27.55
Treatment*Post*September 25.83 0.44 <0.001 25.12 26.55
Treatment*Post*October 24.51 0.44 <0.001 23.79 25.23
Treatment*Post*November 27.1 0.44 <0.001 26.39 27.82
Treatment*Post*December 6.89 0.44 <0.001 6.16 7.61
*Per-household fixed-effects coefficients were omitted from this table for brevity
The PY2021 model of group T1 was a very good fit, per the Adjusted R-square in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14 T1 Group Model Fit
Adjusted R2 F Statistic Number of
Observations
Number of Weighted
Treatment Customers
0.7343 66.66 147,564 4,949
Figure 4-3 displays the monthly household savings for PY2021 resulting from the linear regression, with
associated confidence intervals.

Impact Evaluation Results 30

Figure 4-3 T1 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments

In the winter, the household savings for the T1 group are positive; however, in the summer these
savings are near zero or negative. The following table presents the home energy report savings for the
T1 group by month. This was calculated using the Post*Treatment*Month (B4) and Post*Treatment (B3)
terms, multiplied by the number of days in the month, and the number of weighted customers present
in that month. This table also presents the double counted savings for the group, as well as the final
monthly savings after removing double counted savings for each month.

Impact Evaluation Results 31

Table 4-15 T1 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary
Month
Average
Treatment
Impact
(kWh/month)
Average
Incremental
Double
Counted
Savings
(kWh/month)
Average
Treatment
Impact per
Customer
After Double
Count
(kWh/month)
Control
Group Usage
(kWh/month)
Percent
Savings
January 765.62 -0.05 765.67 2,633.59 29.07%
February 13.37 -0.05 13.42 2,297.97 0.58%
March -229.84 -0.05 -229.79 1,962.26 -11.71%
April -73.43 -0.05 -73.38 1,464.96 -5.01%
May -109.86 -0.05 -109.81 1,231.54 -8.92%
June -326.82 -0.05 -326.77 1,479.91 -22.08%
July -181.24 -0.05 -181.19 1,769.72 -10.24%
August -66.1 -0.05 -66.05 1,400.93 -04.72%
September -34.11 -0.05 -34.06 1,115.54 -03.06%
October 5.73 -0.05 5.78 1,354.89 0.42%
November -72.23 -0.05 -72.18 1,858.8 -3.89%
December 552.12 -0.05 552.17 2,614.11 21.12%

The ex-post gross kWh savings of Home Energy Report program for the T1 group is summarized below
by program year. The number of customers used to calculate total ex-post kWh savings is the number of
weighted treatment customers in the post-period.
Table 4-16 T1 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
5% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
95% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Double
Counted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Adjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Control
Group
Usage Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Percent
Savings Per
Home
243.31 399.73 86.9 -0.60 243.92 21,184.22 1.15%
Table 4-17 T1 Group Total Program Year Savings
Annual Adjusted
Savings Per
Home (kWh)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
5% CI
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
95% CI
243.92 4,949 1,207,146.24 1,981,248.71 433,043.78
The T1 group displayed 1.15% annual household savings for PY2021. Average annual household savings
for treated customers in the T1 group was 243 kWh. Household savings estimates were extrapolated
using the number of weighted treatment customers active in the post-period. The Evaluators found the
T1 group to display 1,207,146 kWh in savings for the PY2021 evaluation. In addition, the 95% confidence
intervals are summarized for each program year.

Impact Evaluation Results 32

4.5.2 T2 Group Results
This section summarizes the results of the persistence study evaluation for the T2 Group. In the table
below, the coefficient estimates for Treatment*Post terms (B3) are nearly all negative, indicating lower
usage per month in the post-period for treatment customers. This coefficient is statistically significant
for all PY2021 months except February. The estimate for Treatment*Post*Month (B4) is mostly negative
with the exception being the early summer months of May, June, and July. The Treatment*Post*Month
coefficients are aggregated with the Treatment*Post coefficient, which mostly results in a negative
value. This indicates positive savings for the majority of the year. Apart from September, all the
Treatment*Post*Monthly coefficients are statistically significant, and once aggregated the results
remain statistically significant. This indicates a positive savings effect for home energy report treatment
at the 95% confidence interval.

Impact Evaluation Results 33

Table 4-18 T2 Group PY2021 Regression Results
Coefficient Estimate Std Error P Value 5% 95%
Post -1.19 0.23 <0.001 -1.57 -0.80
February 0.24 0.28 0.396 -0.22 0.70
March -16.3 0.28 <0.001 -16.77 -15.84
April -36.15 0.28 <0.001 -36.61 -35.69
May -49.44 0.28 <0.001 -49.9 -48.97
June -47.97 0.28 <0.001 -48.43 -47.51
July -38.62 0.28 <0.001 -39.08 -38.16
August -44.26 0.28 <0.001 -44.72 -43.8
September -50.7 0.28 <0.001 -51.16 -50.23
October -40.18 0.28 <0.001 -40.64 -39.72
November -13.04 0.28 <0.001 -13.5 -12.58
December 12.21 0.28 <0.001 11.75 12.68
Treatment*Post 1.35 0.38 <0.001 0.72 1.98
Treatment*Post*February -2.45 0.43 <0.001 -3.16 -1.74
Treatment*Post*March -5.32 0.43 <0.001 -6.02 -4.61
Treatment*Post*April -0.91 0.43 0.033 -1.62 -0.21
Treatment*Post*May 1.3 0.43 0.002 0.6 2.01
Treatment*Post*June 5.69 0.43 <0.001 4.98 6.39
Treatment*Post*July 2.41 0.43 <0.001 1.71 3.12
Treatment*Post*August -1.62 0.43 <0.001 -2.32 -0.91
Treatment*Post*September -0.29 0.43 0.496 -1 0.41
Treatment*Post*October -1.53 0.43 <0.001 -2.23 -0.82
Treatment*Post*November -10.31 0.43 <0.001 -11.01 -9.61
Treatment*Post*December -13.14 0.43 <0.001 -13.84 -12.43
*Per-household fixed-effects coefficients were omitted from this table for brevity
The PY2021 model of group T2 was a very good fit, per the Adjusted R-square in Table 4-19.
Table 4-19 T2 Group Model Fit
Adjusted R2 F Statistic Number of
Observations
Number of Weighted
Treatment Customers
0.7605 76.58 120,324 4,320
Figure 4-4 displays the monthly household savings for PY2021 resulting from the linear regression, with
associated confidence intervals.

Impact Evaluation Results 34

Figure 4-4 T2 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments

Although the summer months display negative savings, the annual household savings for the T2 group is
positive. The following table presents the home energy report savings for the T2 group by month. This
was calculated using the Post*Treatment*Month (B4) and Post*Treatment (B3) terms, multiplied by the
number of days in the month, and the number of weighted customers present in that month. This table
also presents the double counted savings for the group, as well as the final monthly savings after
removing double counted savings for each month.

Impact Evaluation Results 35

Table 4-20 T2 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary
Month
Average
Treatment
Impact
(kWh/month)
Average
Incremental
Double
Counted
Savings
(kWh/month)
Average
Treatment
Impact per
Customer
After Double
Count
(kWh/month)
Control
Group Usage
(kWh/month)
Percent
Savings
January -41.92 0.58 -42.50 2,674.56 -1.57%
February 30.73 0.52 30.21 2,356.54 1.30%
March 122.88 0.58 122.30 1,997.87 6.15%
April -13.17 0.56 -13.73 1,460.31 -0.90%
May -82.29 0.58 -82.87 1,136.85 -7.24%
June -211.16 0.56 -211.72 1,274.00 -16.57%
July -116.72 0.58 -117.30 1,495.06 -7.81%
August 8.18 0.58 7.60 1,193.44 0.69%
September -31.83 0.56 -32.39 1,002.91 -3.17%
October 5.45 0.58 4.87 1,326.82 0.41%
November 268.73 0.56 268.17 1,860.31 14.45%
December 365.35 0.58 364.78 2,624.05 13.92%

The ex-post gross kWh savings of Home Energy Report program for the T2 group is summarized below
by program year. The number of customers used to calculate total ex-post kWh savings is the number of
weighted treatment customers in the post-period.
Table 4-21 T2 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
5% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
95% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Double
Counted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Adjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Control
Group
Usage Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Percent
Savings Per
Home
304.49 483.89 125.09 6.78 297.71 20,402.72 1.46%

Table 4-22 T2 Group Total Program Year Savings
Annual Net
Savings Per
Home (kWh)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
5% CI
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
95% CI
297.71 4,320 1,286,193.89 2,061,254.98 511,132.80
The T2 group displayed 1.46% annual household savings for PY2021. Average annual household savings
for treated customers in the T2 group was 298 kWh. Household savings estimates were extrapolated
using the number of weighted treatment customers active in the post-period. The Evaluators found the

Impact Evaluation Results 36

T2 group to display 1,286,194 kWh in savings for the PY2021 evaluation. In addition, the 95% confidence
intervals are summarized for each program year.
4.5.3 T3 Group Results
This section summarizes the results of the persistence study evaluation for the T3 group. In the table
below, the coefficient estimates for Treatment*Post terms (B3) are mostly negative, indicating lower
usage per month in the post-period for treatment customers. In addition, these coefficients were
statically significant at the 95% level. The estimate for Treatment*Post*Month (B4) was positive for all
months. The Treatment*Post*Month coefficients are aggregated with the Treatment*Post coefficient,
which results in a negative value. This indicates positive savings for the majority of the year. Each of the
Treatment*Post*Monthly coefficients are statistically significant. This indicates a positive savings effect
for home energy report treatment at the 95% confidence interval.

Impact Evaluation Results 37

Table 4-23 T3 PY2021 Regression Results
Coefficient Estimate Std Error P Value 5% 95%
Post -1.05 0.09 <0.001 -1.19 -0.90
February -6.05 0.16 <0.001 -6.31 -5.79
March -11.56 0.16 <0.001 -11.83 -11.30
April -13.11 0.16 <0.001 -13.37 -12.84
May -10.12 0.16 <0.001 -10.39 -9.86
June 2.19 0.16 <0.001 1.93 2.45
July 18.93 0.16 <0.001 18.67 19.20
August 6.37 0.16 <0.001 6.11 6.64
September -8.96 0.16 <0.001 -9.22 -8.70
October -12.63 0.16 <0.001 -12.90 -12.37
November -9.82 0.16 <0.001 -10.08 -9.55
December 0.88 0.16 <0.001 0.62 1.15
Treatment*Post -5.26 0.22 <0.001 -5.63 -4.89
Treatment*Post*February 4.81 0.29 <0.001 4.33 5.28
Treatment*Post*March 5.72 0.29 <0.001 5.25 6.20
Treatment*Post*April 5.45 0.29 <0.001 4.98 5.92
Treatment*Post*May 4.03 0.29 <0.001 3.56 4.51
Treatment*Post*June 12.34 0.29 <0.001 11.87 12.81
Treatment*Post*July 5.18 0.29 <0.001 4.71 5.66
Treatment*Post*August 2.85 0.29 <0.001 2.38 3.33
Treatment*Post*September 5.19 0.29 <0.001 4.72 5.66
Treatment*Post*October 3.92 0.29 <0.001 3.44 4.39
Treatment*Post*November 4.41 0.29 <0.001 3.94 4.88
Treatment*Post*December 0.8 0.29 0.005 0.33 1.27
*Per-household fixed-effects coefficients were omitted from this table for brevity
The PY2021 model of group T3 was a good fit, per the Adjusted R-square in Table 4-24.
Table 4-24 T3 Group Model Fit
Adjusted R2 F Statistic Number of
Observations
Number of Weighted
Treatment Customers
0.6776 51.24 192,438 5,024
Figure 4-5 displays the monthly household savings for PY2021 resulting from the linear regression, with
associated confidence intervals.

Impact Evaluation Results 38

Figure 4-5 T3 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments

Although there were substantially negative savings in June and slightly negative ones in March and April,
the annual household savings for the T3 group is positive. The following table presents the home energy
report savings for the T3 group by month. This was calculated using the Post*Treatment*Month (B4)
and Post*Treatment (B3) terms, multiplied by the number of days in the month, and the number of
weighted customers present in that month. This table also presents the double counted savings for the
group, as well as the final monthly savings after removing double counted savings for each month.

Impact Evaluation Results 39

Table 4-25 T3 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary
Month
Average
Treatment
Impact
(kWh/month)
Average
Incremental
Double
Counted
Savings
(kWh/month)
Average
Treatment
Impact per
Customer
After Double
Count
(kWh/month)
Control
Group Usage
(kWh/month)
Percent
Savings
January 163.02 0.13 162.89 1,286.79 12.67%
February 12.70 0.12 12.59 1,126.40 1.13%
March -14.45 0.13 -14.58 1,098.81 -1.32%
April -5.83 0.12 -5.95 1,003.13 -0.58%
May 37.97 0.13 37.84 1,085.42 3.50%
June -212.46 0.12 -212.58 1,666.18 -12.75%
July 2.29 0.13 2.16 2,020.32 0.11%
August 74.53 0.13 74.41 1,555.50 4.79%
September 2.06 0.12 1.93 1,119.78 0.18%
October 41.64 0.13 41.51 1,013.25 4.11%
November 25.40 0.12 25.28 1,085.71 2.34%
December 138.21 0.13 138.08 1,347.97 10.25%

The ex-post gross kWh savings of Home Energy Report program for the T3 group is summarized below
by program year. The number of customers used to calculate total ex-post kWh savings is the number of
weighted treatment customers in the post-period.
Table 4-26 T3 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
5% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
95% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Double
Counted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Adjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Control
Group
Usage Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Percent
Savings Per
Home
265.19 345.62 184.76 1.50 263.69 15,409.27 1.71%

Table 4-27 T3 Group Total Program Year Savings
Annual Net
Savings Per
Home (kWh)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
5% CI
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
95% CI
263.69 5,024 1,324,881.76 1,728,990.32 920,773.21
The T3 group displayed 1.71% annual household savings for PY2021. Average annual household savings
for treated customers in the T3 was 264 kWh. Household savings estimates were extrapolated using the
number of weighted treatment customers active in the post-period. The Evaluators found the T3 group

Impact Evaluation Results 40

to display 1,324,882 kWh in savings for the PY2021 evaluation period. In addition, the 95% confidence
intervals are summarized for each program year.
4.5.4 T4 Group Results
This section summarizes the results of the persistence study evaluation for the T4 Group. In the table
below, the coefficient estimates for Treatment*Post terms (B3) are mostly negative, indicating lower
usage per month in the post-period for treatment customers. In addition, these coefficients are statically
significant at the 95% level. The estimate for Treatment*Post*Month (B4) is positive for all months in
2021. The Treatment*Post*Month coefficients are aggregated with the Treatment*Post coefficient,
which results in a negative value and consequent positive savings. Each of the Treatment*Post*Monthly
coefficients are statistically significant which indicates a statistically significant positive savings effect for
home energy report treatment at the 95% confidence interval.

Impact Evaluation Results 41

Table 4-28 T4 Group PY2021 Regression Results
Coefficient Estimate Std Error P Value 5% 95%
Post 0.63 0.08 <0.001 0.50 0.76
February -4.16 0.16 <0.001 -4.42 -3.9
March -7.88 0.16 <0.001 -8.14 -7.63
April -9.14 0.16 <0.001 -9.39 -8.88
May -7.55 0.16 <0.001 -7.81 -7.29
June 2.81 0.16 <0.001 2.55 3.07
July 16.91 0.16 <0.001 16.65 17.17
August 5.19 0.16 <0.001 4.93 5.45
September -6.88 0.16 <0.001 -7.14 -6.63
October -9.01 0.16 <0.001 -9.27 -8.75
November -6.67 0.16 <0.001 -6.93 -6.41
December 0.44 0.16 0.005 0.19 0.70
Treatment*Post -3.54 0.24 <0.001 -3.93 -3.15
Treatment*Post*February 3.24 0.31 <0.001 2.73 3.75
Treatment*Post*March 3.51 0.31 <0.001 3.01 4.02
Treatment*Post*April 2.98 0.31 <0.001 2.47 3.49
Treatment*Post*May 2.05 0.31 <0.001 1.54 2.56
Treatment*Post*June 8.38 0.31 <0.001 7.87 8.89
Treatment*Post*July 2.65 0.31 <0.001 2.14 3.16
Treatment*Post*August 1.71 0.31 <0.001 1.20 2.22
Treatment*Post*September 3.3 0.31 <0.001 2.79 3.81
Treatment*Post*October 2.64 0.31 <0.001 2.13 3.15
Treatment*Post*November 2.85 0.31 <0.001 2.34 3.35
Treatment*Post*December 0.69 0.31 0.025 0.18 1.20
*Per-household fixed-effects coefficients were omitted from this table for brevity
The PY2021 model of group T4 was a good fit, per the Adjusted R-square in Table 4-29.
Table 4-29 T4 Group Model Fit
Adjusted R2 F Statistic Number of
Observations
Number of Weighted
Treatment Customers
0.5804 34.02 109,651 2,356
Figure 4-6 displays the monthly household savings for PY2021 resulting from the linear regression, with
associated confidence intervals.

Impact Evaluation Results 42

Figure 4-6 T4 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments

Although June displays clear negative savings, the annual household savings for the T4 group is positive
due to large savings in all other months. The following table presents the home energy report savings
for the T4 group by month. This was calculated using the Post*Treatment*Month (B4) and
Post*Treatment (B3) terms, multiplied by the number of days in the month, and the number of
weighted customers present in that month. This table also presents the double counted savings for the
group, as well as the final monthly savings after removing double counted savings for each month.

Impact Evaluation Results 43

Table 4-30 T4 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary
Month
Average
Treatment
Impact
(kWh/day)
Average
Incremental
Double
Counted
Savings
(kWh/month)
Average
Treatment
Impact per
Customer
After Double
Count
(kWh/month)
Control
Group Usage
(kWh/day)
Percent
Savings
January 109.63 0.08 109.55 904.49 12.12%
February 8.28 0.08 8.20 785.78 1.05%
March 0.72 0.08 0.63 762.22 0.09%
April 16.70 0.08 16.62 689.04 2.42%
May 46.10 0.08 46.02 741.28 6.22%
June -145.31 0.08 -145.40 1,231.8 -11.80%
July 27.43 0.08 27.35 1,539.91 1.78%
August 56.57 0.08 56.48 1,137.32 4.97%
September 7.18 0.08 7.09 780.98 0.92%
October 27.71 0.08 27.63 706.77 3.92%
November 20.73 0.08 20.65 766.39 2.70%
December 88.17 0.08 88.08 941.88 9.36%

The ex-post gross kWh savings of Home Energy Report program for the T4 group is summarized below
by program year. The number of customers used to calculate total ex-post kWh savings is the number of
weighted treatment customers in the post-period.
Table 4-31 T4 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings by Program Year
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
5% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
95% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Double
Counted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Adjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual Control
Group Usage Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Percent
Savings
Per Home
263.98 342.98 184.97 0.99 262.99 10,987.86 2.39%

Table 4-32 T4 Group Total Program Year Savings by Evaluation Period
Annual Net
Savings Per
Home (kWh)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
5% CI
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
95% CI
262.99 2,356 619,578.90 805,709.18 433,448.62
The T4 group displayed 2.39% annual household savings for PY2021. Average annual household savings
for treated customers in the T4 group was 263 kWh. Household savings estimates were extrapolated
using the number of weighted treatment customers active in the post-period. The Evaluators found the

Impact Evaluation Results 44

T4 group to display 619,579 kWh in savings for the PY2021 evaluation period. In addition, the 95%
confidence intervals are summarized for each program year.
4.5.5 T5 Group Results
This section summarizes the results of the persistence study evaluation for the T5 Group. In the table
below, the coefficient estimate for Treatment*Post terms (B3) is negative for most months, indicating
lower usage per month in the post-period for treatment customers. The exceptions to this are the
summer months June, July, and August, as well as December. The estimates for Treatment*Post*Month
(B4) are all positive. The Treatment*Post*Month coefficients are aggregated with the Treatment*Post
coefficient, which results in a negative value. Treatment*Post*Monthly coefficients were statistically
significant for all months except December. However, the results remain statistically significant once
aggregated. This indicates a statistically significant and positive savings effect for home energy report
treatment at the 95% confidence interval.

Impact Evaluation Results 45

Table 4-33 T5 Group PY2021 Regression Results
Coefficient Estimate Std Error P Value 5% 95%
Post 3.3 0.09 <0.001 3.15 3.45
February -2.94 0.18 <0.001 -3.24 -2.64
March -5.9 0.18 <0.001 -6.2 -5.6
April -6.84 0.18 <0.001 -7.14 -6.54
May -5.57 0.18 <0.001 -5.87 -5.27
June 3.69 0.18 <0.001 3.39 3.99
July 16.47 0.18 <0.001 16.17 16.77
August 4.78 0.18 <0.001 4.48 5.07
September -5.5 0.18 <0.001 -5.79 -5.2
October -7.05 0.18 <0.001 -7.35 -6.75
November -5.11 0.18 <0.001 -5.4 -4.81
December 0.52 0.18 0.004 0.22 0.81
Treatment*Post -3.66 0.27 <0.001 -4.11 -3.21
Treatment*Post*February 2.1 0.36 <0.001 1.51 2.69
Treatment*Post*March 2.24 0.36 <0.001 1.65 2.83
Treatment*Post*April 2.05 0.36 <0.001 1.46 2.64
Treatment*Post*May 1.51 0.36 <0.001 0.92 2.1
Treatment*Post*June 7.23 0.36 <0.001 6.64 7.83
Treatment*Post*July 2.19 0.36 <0.001 1.6 2.78
Treatment*Post*August 2.04 0.36 <0.001 1.45 2.63
Treatment*Post*September 3.06 0.36 <0.001 2.47 3.65
Treatment*Post*October 2.15 0.36 <0.001 1.56 2.74
Treatment*Post*November 2.2 0.36 <0.001 1.61 2.79
Treatment*Post*December 0.53 0.36 0.14 -0.06 1.12
*Per-household fixed-effects coefficients were omitted from this table for brevity
The PY2021 model of group T5 was a good fit, per the Adjusted R-square in Table 4-34.
Table 4-34 T5 Group Model Fit
Adjusted R2 F Statistic Number of
Observations
Number of Weighted
Treatment Customers
0.5490 29.98 77,548 1,646
Figure 4-7 displays the monthly household savings for PY2021 resulting from the linear regression, with
associated confidence intervals.

Impact Evaluation Results 46

Figure 4-7 T5 Group PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments

All months except June display positive savings. Therefore, the annual household savings for the T5
group is positive. The following table presents the home energy report savings for the T5 group by
month. This was calculated using the Post*Treatment*Month (B4) and Post*Treatment (B3) terms,
multiplied by the number of days in the month, and the number of weighted customers present in that
month. This table also presents the double counted savings for the group, as well as the final monthly
savings after removing double counted savings for each month.

Impact Evaluation Results 47

Table 4-35 T5 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary
Month
Average
Treatment
Impact
(kWh/day)
Average
Incremental
Double
Counted
Savings
(kWh/month)
Average
Treatment
Impact per
Customer
After Double
Count
(kWh/month)
Control
Group Usage
(kWh/day)
Percent
Savings
January 113.42 -0.03 113.45 807.45 14.05%
February 43.61 -0.03 43.64 706.77 6.17%
March 43.95 -0.03 43.98 680.50 6.46%
April 48.34 -0.03 48.37 613.34 7.88%
May 66.64 -0.03 66.67 659.47 10.10%
June -107.27 -0.03 -107.24 1,104.30 -9.71%
July 45.50 -0.03 45.53 1,387.71 3.28%
August 50.08 -0.03 50.11 1,009.16 4.96%
September 18.00 -0.03 18.04 686.14 2.62%
October 46.72 -0.03 46.75 626.65 7.46%
November 43.86 -0.03 43.89 679.94 6.45%
December 96.95 -0.03 96.99 847.13 11.45%

The ex-post gross kWh savings of Home Energy Report program for the T5 group is summarized below
by program year. The number of customers used to calculate total ex-post kWh savings is the number of
weighted treatment customers in the post-period.
Table 4-36 T5 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
5% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
95% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Double
Counted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Adjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Control
Group
Usage Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Percent
Savings Per
Home
510.2 601.8 418.6 -0.38 510.58 9,808.57 5.21%

Table 4-37 T5 Group Total Program Year Savings
Annual Net
Savings Per
Home (kWh)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Program Year Savings
(kWh)
Program Year Savings
(kWh) 5% CI
Program Year Savings
(kWh) 95% CI
510.58 1,646 840,396.58 991,167.48 689,625.69
The T5 group displayed 5.21% annual household savings for PY2021. Average annual household savings
for treated customers in the T5 group was 511 kWh. Household savings estimates were extrapolated
using the number of weighted treatment customers active in the post-period. The Evaluators found the

Impact Evaluation Results 48

T5 group to display 840,397 kWh in savings for the PY2021 evaluation period. In addition, the 95%
confidence intervals are summarized for each program year.
4.5.6 T6 Group Results
This section summarizes the results of the persistence study evaluation for the T6 Group. In the table
below, the coefficient estimate for Treatment*Post terms (B3) is negative for all months except July,
August, and December. All coefficients are statistically significant, indicating lower usage per month in
the post-period for treatment customers. The estimate for Treatment*Post*Month (B4) is positive for all
months except for June and July. The Treatment*Post*Month coefficients are aggregated with the
Treatment*Post coefficient, which results in a negative value for nearly all months. This indicates
positive savings for the majority of the year. Each of the Treatment*Post*Monthly coefficients are
statistically significant. Overall, the results remain statistically significant once aggregated. This indicates
a statistically significant and positive savings effect for home energy report treatment at the 95%
confidence interval.

Impact Evaluation Results 49

Table 4-38 T6 Group PY2021 Regression Results
Coefficient Estimate Std Error P Value 5% 95%
Post 1.40 0.05 <0.001 1.32 1.48
February -1.06 0.06 <0.001 -1.15 -0.96
March -7.50 0.06 <0.001 -7.59 -7.40
April -10.21 0.06 <0.001 -10.30 -10.11
May -10.20 0.06 <0.001 -10.29 -10.10
June -5.57 0.06 <0.001 -5.66 -5.47
July 4.32 0.06 <0.001 4.22 4.41
August 2.75 0.06 <0.001 2.66 2.85
September -9.43 0.06 <0.001 -9.53 -9.34
October -9.55 0.06 <0.001 -9.64 -9.45
November -4.38 0.06 <0.001 -4.48 -4.29
December 2.41 0.06 <0.001 2.32 2.51
Treatment*Post 0.28 0.08 <0.001 0.15 0.42
Treatment*Post*February -0.38 0.09 <0.001 -0.52 -0.24
Treatment*Post*March -1.06 0.09 <0.001 -1.20 -0.91
Treatment*Post*April -2.68 0.09 <0.001 -2.83 -2.54
Treatment*Post*May -3.47 0.09 <0.001 -3.61 -3.33
Treatment*Post*June 8.86 0.09 <0.001 8.71 9.00
Treatment*Post*July 7.73 0.09 <0.001 7.58 7.87
Treatment*Post*August -4.11 0.09 <0.001 -4.26 -3.97
Treatment*Post*September -2.88 0.09 <0.001 -3.02 -2.73
Treatment*Post*October -4.72 0.09 <0.001 -4.87 -4.58
Treatment*Post*November -4.00 0.09 <0.001 -4.15 -3.86
Treatment*Post*December -1.40 0.09 <0.001 -1.54 -1.26
*Per-household fixed-effects coefficients were omitted from this table for brevity
The PY2021 model of group T6 was a good fit, per the Adjusted R-square in Table 4-39.
Table 4-39 T6 Group Model Fit
Adjusted R2 F Statistic Number of
Observations
Number of Weighted
Treatment Customers
0.6329 42.34 2,421,711 88,827
Figure 4-8 displays the monthly household savings for PY2021 resulting from the linear regression, with
associated confidence intervals.

Impact Evaluation Results 50

Figure 4-8 T6 PY2021 Monthly Household Savings Before Adjustments

Although January and early summer months display negative savings, the annual household savings for
the T6 group is positive. The following table presents the home energy report savings for the T6 group
by month. This was calculated using the Post*Treatment*Month (B4) and Post*Treatment (B3) terms,
multiplied by the number of days in the month, and the number of weighted customers present in that
month. This table also presents the double counted savings for the group, as well as the final monthly
savings after removing double counted savings for each month.

Impact Evaluation Results 51

Table 4-40 T6 Group PY2021 Monthly Savings Summary
Month
Average
Treatment
Impact
(kWh/day)
Average
Incremental
Double
Counted
Savings
(kWh/month)
Average
Treatment
Impact per
Customer
After Double
Count
(kWh/month)
Control
Group Usage
(kWh/day)
Percent
Savings
January -8.82 -0.11 -8.71 1,405.92 -0.63%
February 2.63 -0.10 2.73 1,231.36 0.21%
March 23.93 -0.11 24.04 1,144.14 2.09%
April 72.01 -0.11 72.11 979.31 7.35%
May 98.72 -0.11 98.84 986.24 10.01%
June -274.21 -0.11 -274.11 1,466.97 -18.69%
July -248.3 -0.11 -248.19 1,785.83 -13.90%
August 118.72 -0.11 118.83 1,370.14 8.66%
September 77.74 -0.11 77.85 998.25 7.79%
October 137.61 -0.11 137.73 967.14 14.23%
November 111.57 -0.11 111.68 1,116.75 9.99%
December 34.63 -0.11 34.74 1,441.99 2.40%

The ex-post gross kWh savings of Home Energy Report program for the T6 group is summarized below
by program year. The number of customers used to calculate total ex-post kWh savings is the number of
weighted treatment customers in the post-period.
Table 4-41 T6 Group Ex-Post Annual kWh Savings by Program Year
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
5% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
95% CI
Annual
Unadjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Double
Counted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Adjusted
Savings Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Control
Group
Usage Per
Home
(kWh/year)
Annual
Percent
Savings Per
Home
146.25 185.16 107.34 -1.32 147.57 14,894.04 0.99%

Table 4-42 T6 Group Total Program Year Savings by Evaluation Period
Annual Net
Savings Per
Home (kWh)
Weighted
Treatment
Customers
Program Year
Savings (kWh)
Program Year
Savings (kWh) 5%
CI
Program
Year Savings
(kWh) 95%
CI
147.57 88,827 13,108,083.44 16,564,309.12 9,651,857.76
The T6 group displayed 0.99% annual household savings for PY2021. Average annual household savings
for treated customers in the T6 group was 148 kWh. Household savings estimates were extrapolated
using the number of weighted treatment customers active in the post-period. The Evaluators found the

Impact Evaluation Results 52

T6 group to display 13,108,083 kWh in savings for the PY2021 evaluation period. In addition, the 95%
confidence intervals are summarized for each program year.
4.5.7 Aggregated Groups Results
The Evaluators present positive, statistically significant savings for all groups evaluated. The Evaluators
adjusted regression results with double counted savings in downstream programs to arrive at the final
program savings estimate. The following tables summarize each group’s annual household energy
savings impact with 95% confidence intervals.
Table 4-43 PY2021 Program Savings Summary
Group Weighted
Customers
Annual
Household
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Household
5% CI (kWh)
Annual
Household
95% CI
(kWh)
Program
Savings
(kWh)
Program
Savings 5%
CI (kWh)
Program
Savings
95% CI
(kWh)
T1 4,949 243.92 400.33 87.50 1,207,146 1,981,249 433,044
T2 4,320 297.71 477.12 118.31 1,286,194 2,061,255 511,133
T3 5,024 263.69 344.12 183.26 1,324,882 1,728,990 920,773
T4 2,356 262.99 341.99 183.98 619,579 805,709 433,449
T5 1,646 510.58 602.18 418.98 840,397 991,167 689,626
T6 88,827 147.57 186.48 108.66 13,108,083 16,564,309 9,651,858
Total 107,122 171.64 225.28 118.00 18,386,281 24,132,679 12,639,883

4.6 Demand Reductions
The Evaluators estimated the demand reductions using the kWh savings estimated from the linear
regression results after adjustments for double counted savings.
The Evaluators estimated demand reduction by dividing the annual energy savings by integrating hourly
load factors with monthly estimated energy savings for each group for both the annual program year
and the extended program year.
The following figures display average residential load by end use from the Energy Open Data Catalog
database4.

4 Using TMY3 data from the Boise International Airport weather station

Impact Evaluation Results 53

Figure 4-9 Typical Annual Load Profile

Figure 4-10 Typical Daily Load Profile

The Evaluators conducted the steps presented in the demand calculation methodology in Section 3.7.
The following table displays the resulting demand reductions for each group and the total demand
reductions for 2021 program year.

Impact Evaluation Results 54

Table 4-44 Demand Reductions by Group
Group Verified Demand
Savings (kW)
T1 149.32
T2 159.09
T3 163.97
T4 76.68
T5 104.01
T6 1,622.13
Total 2,275.19
In summary, the 2021 program year for the Home Energy Report Program is estimated to save 2,275.19
kW.
4.7 Attrition Analysis Results
The Evaluators estimated the cumulative level of both treatment and control move outs over the
program life by month, group, and treatment/control status for each program year. The following
table displays the total reallocation (i.e., moveout and group re-assignment) rate aggregating all
groups. Overall attrition in 2021 was approximately 7.5% and 0.9% for treatment and control
customers, respectively.

Impact Evaluation Results 55

Table 4-45 Program Reallocation Rates by Program Year
Period Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Treatment
Reallocation
Percent
Control
Reallocation
Percent
2021 10,550 1,838 7.47% 0.88%
The moveout rates for each group and treatment group range between 0.0% and 8.7%. The low
rates of attrition in T5 are likely due to the fact that despite earlier moveouts of nearly all control
and treatment customers, the Evaluators still included this group in the analysis. Given that the T6
group was initiated in June 2020, it is possible that the high moveout rates can be explained by a
combination of pandemic-related moves and group stabilization over the first full year of the
program. That is, the T6 treatment and control groups consist of customers with household
behaviors different than those of T1 through T5. The attrition rate indicates that the customers in
T6 either have a naturally high attrition rate, or responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with a higher
rate of moveouts than other groups.
Table 4-46 PY2021 Moveout Rates by Group
Group Treatment
Customers
Control
Customers
Treatment
Moveout
Customers
Control
Moveout
Customers
Treatment
Moveout
Percent
Control
Moveout
Percent
T1 7,900 16,558 363 102 4.59% 0.62%
T2 5,826 5,826 350 47 6.01% 0.81%
T3 8,501 49,727 399 249 4.69% 0.50%
T4 4,101 46,191 190 156 4.63% 0.34%
T5 6,501 75,801 134 0 2.06% 0.00%
T6 108,498 14,744 9,114 1,284 8.40% 8.71%
The following figures summarize the cumulative moveout rates by month for each group and each
treatment group in 2021.

Impact Evaluation Results 56

Figure 4-11 PY2021 Monthly Moveout Rates by Group

4.8 Additional Research
The Evaluators conducted additional research for the following IPC objectives:
◼ T5 year-after-year savings
◼ Validation of rate schedule optimization
◼ Validation of benchmarking flags
The following sections detail the methodology and results of each of the research objectives listed
above.
4.8.1 T5 Year-After-Year Savings
The T5 group was added to the Home Energy Report Pilot in year 1 and was designed to represent
customers with low year-round energy use. As previously detailed, IPC stopped sending reports to the
T5 group in April 2020 due to low propensity for savings. This decision was made in order to increase the
cost-effectiveness of the program. IPC is interested to determine whether this group displays observable
persistence savings (energy savings despite lack of treatment) and whether the decision to remove the
T5 group was appropriate.
The T5 group started treatment in August 2017 and ended treatment in April 2020. The Evaluators
estimated observed savings for this group using the same methodology presented for T1, T2, T3, T4, and
T5, also presented in Section 3. The Evaluators estimated unadjusted kWh savings for each post-period
year: 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. These estimates do not account for removal of double counted

Impact Evaluation Results 57

savings; however, these values provide context for incremental observed savings year-after-year for this
group of customers. The results are as follows:
Table 4-47 T5 Year-After-Year Savings
Evaluated
Year
Statistically
Significant
Savings
Annual kWh
Savings per
Household
(Unadjusted)
Annual %
Savings
2018 ✓ 208.77 2.13%
2019 ✓ 264.96 2.70%
2020 ✓ 408.81 4.17%
2021 ✓ 510.20 5.20%
As the table above illustrates, the T5 group indicated increasing savings over time, with Home Energy
Report treatment contributing to 208.77 kWh or 2.13% annual household savings in the group’s first
post-period year in 2018 with a steady upward savings trend to 510.20 kWh or 5.20% annual household
savings in 2021.
The T5 group continues to contribute statistically significant energy savings meeting or exceeding
behavioral program expectations of 1-3% annual household savings. Although the T5 group contributes
1.5% towards participation in the Home Energy Report Program, the group continues to contribute
disproportionately high energy savings towards the program at over 4.5% program savings contribution.
Table 4-48 T5 Contribution to 2021 Program Savings
Group Weighted
Customers
Contribution to
Participation
Program
Savings
Contribution to
Program
Savings
T1 4,949 4.62% 1,207,146 6.57%
T2 4,320 4.03% 1,286,194 7.00%
T3 5,024 4.69% 1,324,882 7.21%
T4 2,356 2.20% 619,579 3.37%
T5 1,646 1.54% 840,397 4.57%
T6 88,827 82.92% 13,108,083 71.29%
The results of this analysis indicate that the IPC customers with low year-round energy use may behave
differently than the other groups in the program. Annual household energy savings for this group nearly
doubled between 2019 and 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic shelter-in-place orders may have heavily
impacted this group of customers’ behaviors towards energy consumption. Customers with low year-
round energy use may consist of a greater proportion of low-income customers. In the case that these
customers prioritized keeping costs low during the shelter-in-place orders, these customers seem to
have greatly benefitted from the energy saving tips communicated through the Home Energy Reports.

Impact Evaluation Results 58

Based on these results, the Evaluators conducted additional efforts to explore year-after-year savings for
the remaining groups as well. The T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 groups have each responded differently to
treatment over time, illustrated in the figures below.
Figure 4-12 T1 Year-After-Year Savings

Figure 4-13 T2 Year-After-Year Savings

Impact Evaluation Results 59

Figure 4-14 T3 Year-After-Year Savings

Figure 4-15 T4 Year-After-Year Savings

Impact Evaluation Results 60

Figure 4-16 T5 Year-After-Year Savings

Figure 4-17 T6 Year-After-Year Savings

Each of the other groups seem to display a plateaued energy savings value, year-after-year, with the
exception of T4 and T5. These two groups display an increasing trend towards increased energy savings,
year-after-year. T4 consists of customers with medium year-round energy use, and T5 consists of
customers with low year-round energy use. This research illustrates that, although there is reason to
believe that low energy users have lower propensity to save energy through Home Energy Reports,
these customers consistently display higher than expected savings during times when financial burden is

Impact Evaluation Results 61

high. The Evaluators therefore recommend that IPC continue treating customers with low to medium
annual energy use.
4.8.2 Rate Schedule Optimization
In 2020, IPC made the decision to stop sending reports to customers who had transitioned from the
residential rate schedule (I01) to the customer generation rate schedule (I06). These customers were
retained in each group, but no longer receive Home Energy Reports. IPC is interested to know if there is
a difference in savings magnitude between the groups when these customer generation rate schedule
customers are included in the analysis, and when these customers are not included in the analysis.
The Evaluators found that when the customer generation customers were removed from each of the
groups, the groups no longer remained statistically valid between treatment and control groups. This
means that, although the IPC customers in each were randomly assigned to each the treatment and
control group, the proportion of customers who had transitioned to the customer generation rate
schedule between the treatment and control group is not equal. The table below illustrates the
proportion of customers who had transitioned to customer generation rate schedules in each group and
treatment group.
Table 4-49 Customer Generation Conversion by Group
Group Treatment Control
T1 0.75% 3.65%
T2 0.50% 2.58%
T3 0.98% 5.00%
T4 0.85% 4.12%
T5 1.15% 2.05%
T6 0.81% 1.47%
For groups T1 through T4, the control customers contributed to five times more customer generation
rate schedule conversions than the treatment customers. For groups T5 and T6, the control customers
contributed two times more customer generation rate schedule conversions than the treatment
customers.
The treatment group may display less likelihood of converting to customer generation rate schedule due
to the information provided on the neighbor comparison Home Energy Reports. The Home Energy
Reports provide customer household information and compares the customers’ energy usage to
neighboring homes. If a customer is informed that their energy usage habits are relatively more efficient
than their neighbors, these customers may be less inclined to take additional large financial home
improvement projects, such as installing solar and switching to customer generation rate schedules.
Due to these findings, the Evaluators are unable to provide incremental household savings estimates
with and without the customer generation rate schedule conversion customers. The Evaluators
recommend that IPC continue to include these customers in the T1 through T6 groups and refrain from

Impact Evaluation Results 62

reallocating them to another treatment group. This will ensure that all legacy groups remain statistically
valid and evaluable.
4.8.3 Benchmarking Flags
The Evaluators explored the benchmarking flags aggregated and used by the implementer for use in the
Home Energy Report messaging. The benchmarking flags are currently required by the implementers to
generate reports. Therefore, in the case that a home does not have valid benchmarking flags, the
customer is ineligible for participation in the program in both the treatment and control group. The
implementers document the following benchmarks for each household in the table below.
Table 4-50 Benchmarking Flags Summary
Item Description
SDPID Service Point Identifier (Device Location ID)
County Physical address county location
HasAC AC Flag (-1 = No data, 0 = No AC, 1 = Has AC)
HasEHW Electrically heated water Flag (-1 = No data, 0 = No electric
water heating, 1 = Has electric water heating)
HasESH Electric space heating flag (-1 = No data, 0 = No electric
space heating, 1 = Has electric space heating)
HasGSH Gas space heating flag (-1 = No data, 0 = No gas space
heating, 1 = Has gas space heating)
HasNG Natural gas flag (-1 = No data, 0 = No natural gas service, 1
= Has natural gas service)
HasPool Pool flag (-1 = No data, 0 = No pool, 1 = Has pool)
Rate_Cat_Cd Rate Category (I01 = Residential Service, I06 = Residential
on-site generation, I05 = Residential time of day)
PhyAddrZip Zip code of physical home address
Home_Bdrm_Cnt Bedroom Count
Home_Year_Built Home year built
HomeType
Home type (-1 = No data, SFD = single family, Mobile =
manufactured and mobile homes, Mplex = Multiplex,
Condo = condo, MultiFamily Undifferentiated =
multifamily, but less detail (for example, condo, multiplex,
townhome, apartments)
Sqft Home square footage

IPC provided the housing characteristics for all customers in the Home Energy Report Program. The
Evaluators explored the number of households with missing benchmarking data. The results are
provided in the figure below.

Impact Evaluation Results 63

Figure 4-18 Proportion of Households with Missing Benchmarks

The Evaluators found that nearly 100% of the households had no data for HasEHW, HasGSH, and
HasPool. However, the proportion of missing data within each the treatment and control groups were
nearly equivalent in each category. Additionally, the proportion remains consistent when inspecting
treatment and control groups within each group. Because nearly all of IPC’s residential customer base is
currently designated to either a treatment or control group, the lack of household characteristics in this
benchmarking dataset provide no barriers for participation in the program.
The Evaluators understand that the addition of these benchmarking flags, especially the air conditioning
and electric heating flags, have previously resulted in removal of a subset of customers in each
treatment group group, until additional data was acquired (T2). The Evaluators have found that
imperfect messaging to a larger population results in higher savings rather than what is achieved with
more accurate messaging to the subset of the population which has better data available. Therefore,
The Evaluators recommend that if a group is designed for the program in the future, that the lack of
benchmarking characteristics is not used as a prerequisite for participation.

Impact & Process
Evaluation of
Idaho Power Company
PY202 1 Commercial
Energy -Saving Kit s
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: JANUARY 19, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: ADM ASSOCIATES, INC.

Tables of Contents and Tables ii
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Savings Results............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Conclusions & Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 6
2. General Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.1 Glossary of Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Summary of Approach .............................................................................................................................. 12
3. Impact Evaluation Results .................................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Simple Verification Results ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Non-Energy Benefits and Non-Energy Impacts ........................................................................................ 23
3.3 Measure-Level Impact Evaluation Results ................................................................................................ 23
3.4 Potential Unified Kit Results ..................................................................................................................... 33
4. Process Evaluation Results ................................................................................................................. 35
4.1 Program Design and Operations............................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Commercial Savings Kit Customer Survey Results .................................................................................... 36
5. Appendix A: Participant Survey .......................................................................................................... 42
5.1 Pre-Defined Variables ............................................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Email Survey Message .............................................................................................................................. 42
5.3 Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 43

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Verified Impact Savings by Facility Type ................................... 5
Table 1-2: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Verified Impact Savings by Measure and Facility Type ............. 5
Table 2-1: Survey-based Verification Completion and Precision by Facility Type ...................................... 14
Table 2-2: Virtual Verification Summary ..................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-3: Virtual Verification Completions and Precision by Facility Type ............................................... 15
Table 2-4: Impact Analysis Methodology by Measure ................................................................................ 16
Table 2-5: Summary of Survey Data Collection .......................................................................................... 19
Table 2-6: Distribution of Measures Installed at Participating Sites and Installed by Survey Respondents
............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Table 3-1: Kit Contents Summary ............................................................................................................... 20
Table 3-2: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure ........................ 20
Table 3-3: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure and Facility Type
............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 3-4: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Delivered in PY2021 ................................................................ 22
Table 3-5: Simple Verification Survey Response Rate ................................................................................ 22
Table 3-6: Verified In-Service Rates by Measure and Facility Type ............................................................ 22
Table 3-7: Assumed In-Service Rates by Measure and Facility Type .......................................................... 23
Table 3-8: Total Verified NEBs and NEIs ..................................................................................................... 23
Table 3-9: Lighting Measure Description .................................................................................................... 24
Table 3-10: Lighting Measure Population Verified Savings ........................................................................ 24
Table 3-11: Lighting Measure Verification Survey ISR Results .................................................................... 25
Table 3-12: Office Kit Adjusted Lighting Savings ......................................................................................... 25
Table 3-13: Restaurant Kit Adjusted Lighting Savings ................................................................................. 26
Table 3-14: Retail Kit Adjusted Lighting Savings ......................................................................................... 26
Table 3-15: Office Kit Lighting NEBs and NEIs ............................................................................................. 27
Table 3-16: Restaurant Kit Lighting NEBs and NEIs ..................................................................................... 27
Table 3-17: Retail Kit Lighting NEBs and NEIs ............................................................................................. 27
Table 3-18 Total Lighting Measure NEBs and NEIs Across Kits ................................................................... 27
Table 3-19: Hot Water Measure Description .............................................................................................. 28

admenergy.com | 3239 Ramos Circle, Sacramento, CA 95827| 916.363.8383 iv
Table 3-20: Hot Water Measures Verified Electric Savings ........................................................................ 28
Table 3-21: Hot Water Measures Verification Survey ISR Results .............................................................. 28
Table 3-22: Office Kit Adjusted Hot Water Savings .................................................................................... 29
Table 3-23: Restaurant Kit Adjusted Hot Water Savings ............................................................................ 29
Table 3-24: Retail Kit Adjusted Hot Water Savings ..................................................................................... 30
Table 3-25: Office Kit Hot Water Measure NEIs ......................................................................................... 31
Table 3-26: Restaurant Kit Hot Water Measure NEIs ................................................................................. 31
Table 3-27: Retail Kit Hot Water Measure NEIs .......................................................................................... 31
Table 3-28: Total Hot Water Measure NEIs Across Kits .............................................................................. 31
Table 3-29: Advanced Power Strip Measure Description ........................................................................... 32
Table 3-30: Advanced Power Strip Verified Electric Savings ...................................................................... 32
Table 3-31: Advanced Power Strip Verification Survey ISR Results ............................................................ 32
Table 3-32: Office Kit Adjusted Savings ...................................................................................................... 33
Table 3-33: Potential Unified Kit Contents ................................................................................................. 33
Table 3-34: Assumed Facility-Level Participant Distribution ...................................................................... 33
Table 3-35: Assumed Facility-Level Electric Water Heat Saturation ........................................................... 34
Table: 3-36 Adjusted Measure Level In-Service Rates Based on Number of Units .................................... 34
Table 3-37: Unified Kit Expected Savings by Measure ................................................................................ 34
Table 4-1: Kit Measures and quantities ...................................................................................................... 36
Table 4-2: Respondent Type ....................................................................................................................... 36
Table 4-3: Number of respondents who did not install some/all of a measure ......................................... 40
Table 4-4: Reasons why respondents did not previously purchase energy efficient items ....................... 41
Table 4-5: Requested Measures ................................................................................................................. 41

Executive Summary 5
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the 2021 program year (PY2021) Commercial Energy-Saving Kits (CSK)
Program Impact and Process Evaluation for Idaho Power Company (IPC) in the Idaho and Oregon
service area. 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 Commercial Energy-Saving Kits
Program to align with similar electric commercial kit programs offered. The impact evaluation resulted
in 43% realization rate, which meets the typical realization for kit programs, between 30% and 50%.
The Evaluators provide recommendations for adjusting measure-level savings assumptions and
altering kit items to increase offerings of desired measures as well as satisfying facility- and customer-
level needs.
In addition, the Evaluators found the vast majority of responding customers were satisfied or very
satisfied with the program (88.4%) and about half of respondents were interested in learning more
about other energy efficiency opportunities through Idaho Power (51.6%). 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
program satisfaction and provide additional information to program participants about other Idaho
Power Company program offerings.
1.1 Savings Results
The Evaluators conducted an impact and process evaluation for IPC’s Commercial Energy-Saving Kits
Program during PY2021. The Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program savings amounted to 130,037 kWh
with a 43.82% realization rate for the kits overall. The Evaluators summarize the program verified
savings in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.
Table 1-1: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Verified Impact Savings by Facility Type
Facility Kits Delivered Claimed Savings
(kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh) Realization Rate
Office 635 112,484 61,770 54.91%
Restaurant 218 172,898 57,220 33.09%
Retail 53 11,369 11,046 97.16%
Total 906 296,751 130,037 43.82%
Table 1-2: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Verified Impact Savings by Measure and Facility Type
Facility Measure
Claimed
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Office
9W A19 11,848 8,812 74.38%
Exit Sign LED 27,111 6,113 22.55%
Advanced Power Strip 38,473 26,100 67.84%
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 20,598 11,080 53.79%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 14,456 9,665 66.85%

Evaluation Report 6
Restaurant
9W A19 11,796 897 7.61%
Exit Sign LED 16,300 3,008 18.45%
Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 53,170 25,601 48.15%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 63,753 12,281 19.26%
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve 27,879 15,433 55.36%
Retail
9W A19 1,363 1,842 135.16%
8W BR30 6,797 5,527 81.31%
Exit Sign LED 1,715 989 57.67%
Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 1,494 2,689 180.00%
The Evaluators conducted the following evaluation tasks for the PY2021 Commercial Energy-Saving Kits
Program impact and process evaluation:
◼ Impact Evaluation
o Database review
o Survey verification
o Virtual verification
o Deemed savings review and application
◼ Process Evaluation
o Staff 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 Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program.
1.2.1 Impact Evaluation
The Evaluators provide the following impact evaluation conclusions and recommendations regarding
Idaho Power’s Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program:
First, the Evaluators present the conclusions and recommendations that affect all measures in the
program:
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators verified 130,037 kWh savings at 43.82% realization rate for the
Commercial Saving Kits. The Evaluators verified savings and assumptions using the RTF-
approved workbooks, the Idaho Power TRM v3.2, and Illinois TRM v9 for the measures included
in the program. The discrepancy in realization rate is due to the large differences between
assumed in-service rates (ISRs) based on the 2020 participant survey and the verified in-service
rates calculated from participant responses to verification surveys as part of this evaluation. The
Evaluators note that the difference in in-service rates between 2020 and 2021 is unusually large,

Evaluation Report 7
given that each of the survey efforts achieved 90/10 precision and confidence. However, it may
indicate that the provided measures are utilized less in current small business applications.
▪ Recommendation #1: To more accurately estimate verified savings, the
Evaluators recommend IPC continue to update their ISR assumptions when
calculating claimed savings for future program years.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that office, restaurant, and retail participants displayed an
electric water heat saturation rate of 56%, 40%, and 90%, respectively.
▪ Recommendation #2: The Evaluators recommend IPC continue to update their
electric water heat saturation assumptions when calculating claimed savings for
future program years.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that the restaurant participants displayed significantly lower
in-service rates for general service LEDs than expected due to lack of need for the item, the item
did not fit, or management did not have time to install.
◼ Conclusion: The lighting measures displayed verified savings of 27,188 kWh with a realization
rate of 35.34% compared to claimed IPC savings. The general lighting realization rate is being
driven by the low verified in-service rates for restaurant LEDs (7% ISR) and Exit Sign LEDs across
all facility types (6% ISR). In nearly all measures, the verified in-service rates resulting from
participant surveys done as part of this evaluation are lower than the in-service rates Idaho
Power had used to calculate claimed savings.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators reviewed measure-level engineering algorithms and savings sources
to measure verified savings. For the lighting measures, the Evaluators found that differences in
the expected savings and the adjusted savings for LED measures arise from lack of application of
space heating and space cooling interactive effects. The verified adjusted savings the Evaluators
calculated has used heating and cooling interactive effects sourced from the Idaho Power TRM
v3.2 based on the facility type of the installed measure. The expected savings calculated by IPC
did not integrate interactive effects, and therefore display lower expected savings than verified
adjusted savings. This difference in methodology led to greater than 100% realization rates for
verified adjusted savings.
▪ Recommendation #3: The Evaluators recommend IPC include space heating and
space cooling interactive effects when calculating claimed savings for lighting
measures in the future.
◼ Conclusion: For the lighting measures, IPC had calculated claimed savings using “Other” facility
type hours of use (3,800 annual hours) for retail applications whereas the Evaluators estimated
verified savings using a blended value of retail facility types (4,533 annual hours) from the TRM.
This difference in methodology led to greater than 100% realization rates for verified adjusted
savings.
▪ Recommendation #4: The Evaluators recommend IPC alter assumed hours of use
for retail applications to 4,533 hours per year.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators note that the EISA backstop, which will be enforced July 1, 2023,
requires that all general service lamps sold must display 45 lumens per watt. This code effectively
changes the measure baseline to display efficiency values equivalent to LEDs. Therefore, any
programs which incentivize the purchase of LED general service lamps no longer produce energy
savings compared to the baseline.

Evaluation Report 8
▪ Recommendation #5: The Evaluators recommend that IPC plan to remove LED
measures from the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program. The resulting
verified savings for the measure will be claimable until July 1, 2023. After this
date, third party evaluators must assume that all unqualified lighting measures
have been replaced by LED measures due to burnout.
◼ Conclusion: The hot water measures displayed verified savings of 76,749 kWh with a realization
rate of 42% compared to the claimed savings for these measures. The expected savings used to
determine the realization rate were found by multiplying the savings per measure of the hot water
measures included in kits by the total number of each measure sent out in kits during PY2021.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found the expected savings assumptions for the bathroom and faucet
aerators were appropriate and valid, and therefore did not apply adjustments to IPC expected
savings for these measures. The Evaluators made no adjustments to the PRSV expected savings
methods. This led to no savings adjustments for the faucet aerator measures and PRSV measures
between expected and adjusted savings (assuming 100% ISR and 100% water heat saturation).
Therefore, the discrepancy in the verified savings realization rates (43% realization rate) stem
almost solely from the difference in assumed and verified ISRs and electric water heat saturation
rates.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that participant survey responses observed in-service rates for
faucet aerators between 24% and 31% across facility types, while the PRSV measure displayed in-
service rates of 55%.
◼ Conclusion: The advanced power strip measure displayed verified savings of 26,100 kWh with a
realization rate of 68% compared to the claimed savings for the measure. The restaurant and
retail kits did not provide this measure. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES
values for the advanced power strip measure and found a minor reference error resulting in 0.31%
higher adjusted savings. The discrepancy in the verified savings realization rate (68% realization)
stems almost solely from the difference in assumed and verified ISRs.
◼ Conclusion: The Evaluators found that participant survey responses observed in-service rates for
advanced power strips in office businesses was 63% as opposed to the assumed ISR of 94%.
◼ Conclusion: As part of the evaluation, the Evaluators estimated non-energy benefits (NEBs) and
non-energy impacts (NEIs) from the measures offered through the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits
Program. The Evaluators verified the following NEBs and NEIs across all measures and facility
types: $40.28 in verified Annual NEBs, 4.88 kW, and -406.28 Therms.
1.2.2 Process Evaluation
The Evaluators provide the following process evaluation conclusions and recommendations regarding
Idaho Power’s Commercial Savings Kit Program:
◼ Conclusion: The vast majority of responding customers were satisfied or very satisfied with the
program (88.4%) and about half of respondents were interested in learning more about other
energy efficiency opportunities through Idaho Power (51.6%). Many customers indicated interest
in conducting additional upgrades and retrofits, such as installing occupancy sensors for lighting,
and water heating and space heating upgrades.
◼ Recommendation # 6: The Evaluators recommend that IPC provide more opportunities
for participating customers to learn about other offerings IPC provides.

Evaluation Report 9
◼ Conclusion: The majority of respondents who remembered receiving a kit indicated they installed
at least one measure from the kit (95.6%). LED retrofit kits for exits signs were the most common
item not installed by respondents, followed by pre-rinse spray valve, low-flow kitchen faucet
aerators, and low-flow bathroom faucet aerator. The most common reasons for respondents
provided for not installing these items included not needing the item, the item did not fit, and not
having time to install them. The Evaluators note that IPC has removed the pre-rinse spray valves
from the new kit offering for future program years due to RTF deactivation of the measure. IPC
has also reduced the number of exit sign kits and bathroom aerators due to low installation rates
from the 2020 survey.
◼ Recommendation #7: Evaluators recommend Idaho Power staff reconsider the inclusion
of retrofit exit signs and low-flow aerators altogether for kits moving forward. Although
these measures can garner energy savings, they are not popular among kit recipients
and thus may not be cost-effective measures to provide consumers.
◼ Conclusion: In general, respondents noted they had not previously purchased the energy
efficiency items included in the kit because they did not know enough about the item.
◼ Conclusion: Some participants were interested in receiving more LED lights, as well as occupancy
sensors and timers in future kits.
◼ Recommendation #8: Expanding upon Recommendation #7, rather than provide
unwanted measures, such as retrofit exit signs, pre-rinse spray valves, and low-flow
aerators, Idaho Power staff should consider providing other measures such as
occupancy sensors, as customers indicate a desire for such applications.

Evaluation Report 10
2. General Methodology
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation for each of the measures included in the Commercial
Energy-Saving Kits Program. 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 Commercial Energy-Saving Kit Program for the 2021 program year;
2. Verify installation and operating conditions of equipment remotely via livestream/video call
platform;
3. Develop estimates of program non-electric impacts (NEIs) and non-energy benefits (NEBs);
4. Evaluate program design1, implementation2, and administration3;
5. Review customer surveys and offer guidance on program improvement; and
6. 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 collected data on program performance, design, 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, Illinois Technical Reference Manual version 9.0)
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
◼ Participant surveys
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. The Evaluators

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 11
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
◼ Illinois Technical Reference Manual (TRM) version 9.07
◼ 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.
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 appropriate RTF UES and
Illinois 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.
◼ 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.).

6 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures
7 https://www.ilsag.info/technical-reference-manual/il-trm-version-9/
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 12
◼ 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 Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program. This chapter is organized by evaluation objective.
Section 2.2.2.3 and Section 3 describe the Evaluators’ measure-specific impact evaluation methods and
results in further detail and Section 2.2.4 and Section 3.3.3.3 describe the Evaluator’s process evaluation
methods and results.
The Evaluators outline the approach for verifying, measuring, and reporting the program impacts as well
as summarizing potential program 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, however, the Evaluators completed virtual verification for a
sample of projects.
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
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits 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 baseline adjustments for hot water
measures in which RTF annual water usage may differ from Illinois TRM values.
The Evaluators accomplished the following quantitative goals as part of the impact evaluation:
◼ Verify savings with 10% precision at the 90% confidence level;
◼ Cross-verify customer-reported survey values with virtual verification efforts; and,
◼ Where appropriate, apply the RTF or Illinois TRM to verify measure impacts.
The Evaluators calculated verified savings for each measure based on the RTF UES or Illinois TRM in
combination with the results from document review. The Evaluators also applied in-service rates (ISRs)
from verification surveys for measures which exceeded 90/10 precision requirements from survey
responses.

Evaluation Report 13

2.2.1 Database Review
At the outset of the evaluation, the Evaluators reviewed the databases to ensure that the 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) or engineering equations and appropriate assumptions sourced from the Illinois
TRM. The Evaluators then aggregated and cross-verify program and measure totals.
The Evaluators reviewed program documents including savings source workbooks, delivered technical
reference manuals, and supplemental calculations to verify the tracking data accurately represents the
program kit contents, total participants, and expected savings for each measure.
2.2.2 Verification Methodology
The Evaluators verified a sample of participating small businesses for verification of measure installation
through web-based surveys. The Evaluators used the following equations to estimate survey completion
requirements for the program in order to achieve 10% precision at the 90% confidence level. Required
number of responses 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,
◼ 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
Reported
Savings
Database
Review
Document
Review
Survey
Verification
Virtual
Verification
Evaluated
Savings

Evaluation Report 14
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 survey-based verification
and virtual verification.
2.2.2.1 Response Goals
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 verification survey efforts using
Equation 2-1 and Equation 2-2. The Evaluators ensured representation for each measure.
Table 2-1: Survey-based Verification Completion and Precision by Facility Type
Facility Type Kit
Population
Completions
(With Finite
Population
Adjustment) *
Precision at
90% CI
Office 635 60 90%
Confidence
±8.67%
Precision
Restaurant 218 20
Retail 53 10
Total 906 90
*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 achieved 90 completed survey responses toward the impact and process evaluation
activities for this program and surveyed a total of 600 participating 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 Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program,
described in the sections above. The primary purpose of conducting a verification survey is to confirm
that the participant had indeed received the kit, that the measure was installed, and that the measure 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 ±8.00% 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, separated by facility type. These ISRs

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 15
were applied to kit-level verified savings. ISRs were summarized and applied by measure and facility
type. The measure-level ISRs resulting from the survey-based verification are summarized in Section 3.1.
2.2.2.3 Virtual Verification
In August and September 2022, the Evaluator completed 6 virtual verifications with Idaho Power
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program participants. These virtual verification interviews informed the
impact evaluation and addressed research questions on measures installed and not installed through
the program.
Idaho Power provided a list of 600 unique participants for the 2021 program year. From that list, we
recruited 31 potential respondents via email and phone form. We contacted all respondents and
completed virtual verifications from 6 participants (Table 2-2).
Table 2-2: Virtual Verification Summary
Disposition Count
Complete 6
Partial complete 0
Nonresponse 20
Refused 4
Bad number 1
Total 31
The Evaluators attempted to reach customers up to three times and offered a $50 gift card to all
participants that completed the virtual verification. The virtual verification efforts, conducted by
smartphone link, averaged about 30 minutes, and were recorded with permission of the respondent.
The Evaluators developed a sampling plan to achieve a sampling precision of ±20% at 90% statistical
confidence – or “90/20 precision” – to estimate the percentage of projects for which the claimed savings
are verified or require some adjustment. However, due to lack of responses through recruitment emails,
nonresponse, and refusal, the Evaluators did not meet the 20% precision goal. The Evaluators achieved 6
total virtual verification completions at 31.88% precision at the 90% confidence interval.
The Evaluators completed the following samples for the program’s document review using Equation 2-1
and Equation 2-2.
Table 2-3: Virtual Verification Completions and Precision by Facility Type
Facility Type Kit
Population
Completions
(With Finite
Population
Adjustment)*
Precision at
90% CI
Office 635 3 90%
Confidence
±31.88%
Precision
Restaurant 218 2
Retail 53 1
Total 906 6
*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.

Evaluation Report 16
Although web survey efforts did not meet precision requirements, the Evaluators found that the survey
responses aligned with the information gathered through web surveys with these customers.
2.2.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology
The Evaluators employed a deemed savings approach to quantify program impacts for the Commercial
Energy-Saving Kits Program. The Evaluators completed the steps outlined below to complete the impact
evaluation for the program.
1. Deliver a detailed data request outlining the information we require for each kit type.
2. Complete a thorough and comprehensive summary of calculated savings.
3. Validate that appropriate inputs to deemed savings and engineering algorithms were used for
each measure.
4. Apply observed in-service rates and observed electric water heater saturation rates acquired
through web-based survey responses.
5. Verify the gross energy (kWh) savings that are a result of the program.
6. 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 and Illinois TRM employed during calculation of ex-ante measure savings.
The Evaluators documented any cases where recommended 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 TRMs/workpapers presented in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Impact Analysis Methodology by Measure
End Use Measure Impact Analysis Methodology
Lighting
9W A19 IPC TRM v3.2 Section 1.7 & 2.1
8W BR30 IPC TRM v3.2 Section 1.7 & 2.1
Exit Sign LED IPC TRM v3.2 Section 1.7 & 2.1
Hot Water
Faucet Aerator (1 GPM) IL v9 TRM Section 4.3.2
Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) IL v9 TRM Section 4.3.2
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve RTF UES
ComCookingPreRinseSprayValve_v2_5
Advanced Power Strip Advanced Power Strip RTF UES
ComAdvancedPowerStrip_v4_1

The Evaluators detail measure-specific impact evaluation methodologies in Section 3.2.

Evaluation Report 17
2.2.4 Process Evaluation Methodology
The process evaluation of the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits 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 will 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 the following:
◼ Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices;
◼ Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach;
◼ Review program forms, manuals, marketing and kit materials, and provide recommendations for
improvement, as needed;
◼ Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation and reporting;
◼ Review customer surveys and offer guidance on program improvement; and
◼ Report findings and observations and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness.
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. 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 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 four IPC program staff. The interviews covered the following topics.

Evaluation Report 18
◼ 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;
◼ Past changes and future planned changes to the program;
◼ 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 2021 program. The objective
of the survey was to collect data on the following components:
◼ 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
◼ Facility space and water heating characteristics.
The Evaluator developed the survey guide in conjunction with Idaho Power staff to address the above
objectives through various questions to the participating customers. The survey questions are provided
in Appendix A: Participant Survey.
2.2.5 Data Collection
The following primary data collection activities were completed to support the evaluation of the
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program.
2.2.5.1 Program Staff Interviews
Evaluators interviewed four Idaho Power Staff to learn more about the history, purpose, and design of
the Commercial Savings Kit program. Interviewees included two analysts and two program specialists, all
of whom are involved in the Commercial Savings Kit program.
2.2.5.2 Participant Survey
The Evaluators administered a survey to customers who participated in the 2021 program. The
participant survey responses were used to inform the process evaluation, verify the measure
installations, and gather information of customer satisfaction with the kit contents and the program
overall.
The survey was administered online, and customers were recruited by email in July 2022. Each customer
received up to three emails asking them to complete the survey. Customers were offered a $25
electronic gift card for completing the survey. Customers with inactive IPC accounts were excluded from
the survey sample.
Table 2-5 summarizes the survey data collection. The survey efforts received 98 program participants
responses; however, 8 of those 98 did not remember receiving the kits, and therefore did not complete
the survey. The survey effort received 90 total survey completions with an overall response rate of
15.0%.

Evaluation Report 19
Table 2-5: Summary of Survey Data Collection
Facility
Type
Number
of Kits
Number of
Emailed
Surveys
Number
of Survey
Completes
Response
Rate
Office 635 432 60 13.89%
Restaurant 218 124 20 16.13%
Retail 53 44 10 22.73%
Total 906 600 90 15.00%
Table 2-6 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 in terms
of facility type and number of responses.
Table 2-6: Distribution of Measures Installed at Participating Sites and Installed by Survey Respondents
Facility
Type
Number
of Kits
Proportion
of Kit Type
Number of
Survey
Responses
Proportion
of Survey
Responses
Office 635 70% 60 67%
Restaurant 218 24% 20 22%
Retail 53 6% 10 11%
Total 906 - 90 -
2.2.6 Net-To-Gross
The Northwest RTF UES measures do not require NTG adjustments as they are built into the deemed
savings estimates. However, the Evaluators employed the Illinois TRM to calculate verified savings for
the faucet aerator measures. For this measure, “NTG” is intertwined with baseline – savings from faucet
aerators are based on their difference between the pre-condition gallons per minute (GPM) aerator and
the new, efficient faucet aerator GPM. For this reason, the Evaluators used baseline estimates provided
in deactivated RTF workbooks when appropriate in order to capture the current practice baseline.
Further details are provided in the impact evaluation results section for the hot water measures in
Section 3.3.1.3.
2.2.7 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 NEBs include lighting end-use measures. Measures with quantified NEIs
include hot water end-use measures. Further details are provided in the measure-level impact
evaluation result section in Section 3.3.

Executive Summary 20
3. Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed an impact evaluation on Idaho Power’s Commercial Energy-Saving Kit (CSK)
Program to verify program-level and measure-level energy savings for PY2021. The following sections
summarize findings for the electric impact evaluation in the program in the Idaho and Oregon service
area. The Evaluators used data collected from participant surveys and applicable Regional Technical
Forum (RTF) workbooks, technical reference manuals (TRMs), and workpapers to evaluate savings.
In PY2021, Idaho Power completed and provided incentives for commercial electric measures in Idaho
and Oregon under the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program. Kits were sent to small businesses within
the following categories: Office, Restaurant, and Retail. The contents of each kit provided are dependent
on the facility type of each participant, however, the measures offered through the program include
LEDs, bathroom faucet aerators, kitchen faucet aerators, pre-rinse spray valves, advanced power strips,
and LED exit signs. The Evaluators summarize kit contents by facility type in the table below:
Table 3-1: Kit Contents Summary
Facility Type Measure
Restaurant
(3) 9W A19 LED
(2) Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM)
(2) Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM)
(2) Exit Sign LED
(1) Pre-Rinse Spray Valve
Retail
(2) 9W A19 LED
(2) 8W BR30 LED
(1) Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM)
(2) Exit Sign LED
Office
(2) 9W A19 LED
(2) Bathroom Faucet Aerator
(1.0 GPM)
(1) Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM)
(2) Exit Sign LED
(1) Advanced Power Strip
Table 3-2 summarizes the CSK Program verified impact savings by measure. Claimed savings for this
table represent the expected savings for each kit extrapolated to the population of surveyed kits and
adjusted to reflect expected in-service rates (ISRs). The Evaluators determined verified savings by
reviewing and adjusting expected deemed savings and by applying verified ISRs and electric water
heating saturation rates resulting from program participant surveys. The Evaluators summarize the
measure-level and total program verified savings in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure
Measure
Claimed
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
9W A19 LED 25,007 11,552 46.19%
8W BR30 LED 6,797 5,527 81.31%
Exit Sign LED 45,126 10,109 22.40%
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 75,261 39,370 52.31%

Evaluation Report 21

Measure
Claimed
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 78,209 21,946 28.06%
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve 27,879 15,433 55.36%
Advanced Power Strip 38,473 26,100 67.84%
Total 296,751 130,037 43.82%
*The total differs by 3 kWh due to small rounding differences between reported savings and workbook expected savings
The Evaluators found the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program resulted in 130,037 kWh of verified
savings, displaying a 43.82% realization rate against the IPC-claimed savings of 296,751 kWh for the
program. The Evaluators provide facility-type verified savings and realization rates by measure in Table
3-3.
Table 3-3: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program Verified Impact Savings by Measure and Facility Type
Measure Facility
Claimed
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings (kWh)
Realization
Rate
9W A19 LED
Office 11,848 8,812 74.38%
Restaurant 11,796 897 7.61%
Retail 1,363 1,842 135.16%
8W BR30 LED Retail 6,797 5,527 81.31%
Exit Sign LED
Office 27,111 6,113 22.55%
Restaurant 16,300 3,008 18.45%
Retail 1,715 989 57.67%
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM)
Office 20,598 11,080 53.79%
Restaurant 53,170 25,601 48.15%
Retail 1,494 2,689 180.00%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) Office 14,456 9,665 66.85%
Restaurant 63,753 12,281 19.26%
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Restaurant 27,879 15,433 55.36%
Advanced Power Strip Office 38,473 26,100 67.84%
Total 296,751 130,037 43.82%
*The total differs by 3 kWh due to small rounding differences between reported savings and workbook expected savings
Total realization rates for the program result in 43.82%. The primary factor in the low realization rates
are the differences between assumed ISRs, based on the 2020 participant survey, and the verified ISRs
and electric water heat saturation resulting from evaluation survey efforts. Verified ISRs were lower
than IPC ISRs for nearly all measures and verified electric water heat saturation was lower than claimed
saturation for all facility types. The ISRs and electric water heat saturation assumptions are crucial
factors in determining verified savings, resulting in the lower realization rates across the board.
To determine ISR and electric water heat saturation rates, the Evaluators sent surveys to 600 unique
contacts of program participants in PY2021. The following table provides the breakdown of participants,
contacts, and responses by facility type.

Evaluation Report 22

Table 3-4: Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Delivered in PY2021
Facility Participants Customers
Surveyed
Survey
Respondents
Office 635 432 60
Restaurant 218 124 20
Retail 53 44 10
Total 906 600 90
Survey results were used to develop an in-service rate (ISR), which was applied to the program
population and savings per kit to determine total verified program savings.
3.1 Simple Verification Results
The Evaluators surveyed participant customers between July and August of 2022 using a web approach
(online survey). The Evaluators deployed 600 surveys and received responses from 98 unique customers
that participated in Idaho Power’s CSK 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 3-5.
Table 3-5: Simple Verification Survey Response Rate
Measurement Number of
Project Sites
Population 906
Customers Contacted by Email 600
Survey Responses 98
Response Rate 16.3%
3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators calculated in-service rates of installed measures from the collection of 98 responses to
the simple verification survey, detailed above. The Evaluators asked participants if they remembered
receiving the kit and whether the equipment provided in the kit is currently installed and operational.
The in-service rates of the measures by facility are presented in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6: Verified In-Service Rates by Measure and Facility Type
Measure Office Restaurant Retail
9W A19 63% 7% 90%
8W BR30 - - 40%
Faucet Aerator (1 GPM) 24% 45% 60%
Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 29% 15% -
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve - 55% -
Advanced Power Strip 63% - -
LED Exit Sign 5% 8% 10%
In contrast, the assumed in-service rates used by Idaho Power staff in the development of the claimed
kWh savings for the program are as follows:

Evaluation Report 23

Table 3-7: Assumed In-Service Rates by Measure and Facility Type
Measure Office Restaurant Retail
9W A19 90% 92% 85%
8W BR30 - - 63%
Faucet Aerator (1 GPM) 41% 69% 50%
Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 40% 58% -
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve - 74% -
Advanced Power Strip 94% - -
LED Exit Sign 32% 56% 24%
The in-service rates used by Idaho Power were based on the survey results collected from respondents
in 2020, which also met 90/10 confidence and precision. The differences between the in-service rates
verified by the Evaluators and the in-service rates assumed led to the large discrepancies in realization
rates across measures. In all cases except for retail 9W A19 LEDs and retail bathroom faucet aerators,
the IPC-applied in-service rates are lower than the in-service rates resulting from the Evaluator’s
participant survey responses. Although the number of responses from the 2020 survey outnumbered
the number of responses from the 2021 survey deployed during the evaluation, the responses in the
2021 survey indicated much lower in-service rates. The drastic change in in-service rates year-over-year
is atypical. The Evaluators speculate that the in-service rates may have been impacted due to large
changes in small business operations, productivity, and management since COVID-19 impacts.
Therefore, the Evaluators expect that the in-service rates displayed in the 2021 survey will be more
aligned with future in-service rates for the program moving forward.
3.2 Non-Energy Benefits and Non-Energy Impacts
As part of the evaluation, the Evaluators estimated non-energy benefits (NEBs) and non-energy impacts
(NEIs) resulting from the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program. The table below summarizes the total
NEBs and NEIs verified through the evaluation for this program.
Table 3-8: Total Verified NEBs and NEIs
End-Use Verified Annual
NEBs ($)
Verified kW
Savings
Verified Therms
Savings
Verified Water
Savings (Gallons)
Lighting $40.28 9.98 -820.25 N/A
Hot Water - 4.46 3,987.89 1,547,524.73
Advanced Power Strips - - - -
Total $40.28 14.44 3,167.64 1,547,524.73
The Evaluators estimated NEBs and NEIs using the savings sources defined for each measure in the
measure-level sections below.
3.3 Measure-Level Impact Evaluation Results
The Evaluators summarize the program- and measure-specific impact analysis activities and results for
the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program in the sections below.

Evaluation Report 24

3.3.1 Lighting
The Commercial Saving Kits Program includes various LED lighting equipment in each of the office,
restaurant, and retail kits. Included in every kit is at least two general purpose 9W screw-in A19 LEDs
and two exit sign LEDs. Two 8W BR30 LEDs are also included in the retail kits. Table 3-9 summarizes the
lighting measures offered under this program.
Table 3-9: Lighting Measure Description
Measure Description Impact Analysis
Methodology
9W A19 9W general purpose screw-in LED. Assumed to
be replacing a 13W CFL Bulb
Idaho Power TRM v3.2
Section 1.7 & 2.1
8W BR30 8W BR30 bulb. Assumed to be replacing a 35W
Halogen Bulb
Idaho Power TRM v3.2
Section 1.7 & 2.1
Exit Sign LED 4W dual-sided LED Exit Sign. Assumed to be
replacing a 14W dual-sided CFL Exit Sign.
Idaho Power TRM v3.2
Section 1.7 & 2.1
Table 3-10 summarizes the verified electric energy savings resulting from the impact evaluation of the
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program lighting measures.
Table 3-10: Lighting Measure Population Verified Savings
Measure Facility
Claimed
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
9W A19 LED
Office 11,848 8,812 74.38%
Restaurant 11,796 897 7.60%
Retail 1,363 1,842 135.14%
8W BR30 LED Retail 6,797 5,527 81.32%
Exit Sign LED
Office 27,111 6,113 22.55%
Restaurant 16,300 3,008 18.45%
Retail 1,715 989 57.67%
Total 76,930 27,188 35.34%
The lighting measures displayed verified savings of 27,188 kWh with a realization rate of 35.34%
compared to claimed IPC savings. The general lighting realization rate is being driven by the low verified
in-service rates for restaurant LEDs (7% ISR) and Exit Sign LEDs across all facility types (6% ISR). The
Evaluators summarize the measure-specific in-service rates and further details of verified savings for the
lighting measures in the sections below.
3.3.1.1 In-Service Rates
The Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. The Evaluators determined whether the provided measures were installed at the
business or if there were any plans to install the provided equipment in the future. An ISR for each
measure by facility type was developed using the number of each measure installed and the total
number of measures. Table 3-11 displays the ISRs for each of the lighting measures offered in each of
the kits.

Evaluation Report 25

Table 3-11: Lighting Measure Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Office Restaurant Retail Total
9W A19 63% 7% 90% 50%
8W BR30 - - 40% 40%
Exit Sign LED 5% 8% 10% 6%
3.3.1.2 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the lighting measures.
The Evaluators calculate adjusted savings as the difference in methodology application. This comparison
verifies the difference in savings methodology alone, assuming 100% ISR and 100% electric water heat
saturation. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the Idaho Power TRM v3.2 hours of use and heating
and cooling interactive effect values for the lighting measures along with baseline assumptions agreed
upon by Idaho Power to estimate savings per measure. Differences in the claimed savings and the
adjusted savings arise from application of space heating and space cooling interactive effects. The
verified savings the Evaluators calculated has used heating and cooling interactive effects sourced from
the Idaho Power TRM v3.2 based on the facility type of the installed measure. The expected savings did
not integrate interactive effects, and therefore display lower expected savings than verified adjusted
savings.
Additionally, for the retail facility type, IPC had calculated claimed savings using “Other” facility type
hours of use (3,800 annual hours) for retail applications whereas the Evaluators estimated verified
savings using a blended value of retail facility types (4,533 annual hours) from the TRM, excluding
“Retail Big Box” and “Retail - 3-story Large”, as those facility types were unlikely to be included in the
CSK program. These two differences in methodology led to greater than 100% realization rates for
verified adjusted savings.
The expected savings values used to determine the program-level realization rate were found by
multiplying the savings per measure of the lighting measures included in kits by the total number of
each measure sent out in kits during PY2021. The verified savings were determined by applying the ISR
from the survey responses.
Table 3-12 through Table 3-14 detail expected savings per lighting measure by facility type for both the
ex-post and ex-ante. These tables detail savings with an assumed ISR of 100% to illustrate the difference
in expected savings. The utilization of interactive effects in the verified savings calculations results in
greater savings for all lighting measures. Therefore, the discrepancy resulting in low realization rates in
verified savings (35%, as displayed in Table 3-10) stems solely from low ISRs.
Table 3-12: Office Kit Adjusted Lighting Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR)
Office
9W A19 LED (One) 10.40 11.10 106.75%
9W A19 LED (Two) 10.40 11.10 106.75%
Exit Sign LED (One) 66.58 93.51 140.46%

Evaluation Report 26

Exit Sign LED (Two) 66.58 93.51 140.46%
Total 153.95 209.23 135.91%
Table 3-13: Restaurant Kit Adjusted Lighting Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR)
Restaurant
9W A19 LED (One) 19.60 20.58 105.00%
9W A19 LED (Two) 19.60 20.58 105.00%
9W A19 LED (Three) 19.60 20.58 105.00%
Exit Sign LED (One) 66.58 91.98 138.16%
Exit Sign LED (Two) 66.58 91.98 138.16%
Total 191.95 245.70 128.00%
Table 3-14: Retail Kit Adjusted Lighting Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR)
Retail
9W A19 LED (One) 15.20 19.31 127.04%
9W A19 LED (Two) 15.20 19.31 127.04%
8W BR30 LED (One) 102.60 130.35 127.04%
8W BR30 LED (Two) 102.60 130.35 127.04%
Exit Sign LED (One) 66.58 93.29 140.13%
Exit Sign LED (Two) 66.58 93.29 140.13%
Total 368.75 485.90 131.77%

3.3.1.3 Non-Energy Benefits and Non-Energy Impacts
As part of the evaluation, the Evaluators estimated NEBs and NEIs resulting from the lighting measures
offered through the program. The Evaluators estimated NEBs using the Regional Technical Forum
lighting workbook and the NEIs using the savings sources defined in Table 3-9.
For the lighting measures, the Evaluators estimated annual NEBs, kW savings, and Therms penalty as
defined in the IL TRM. The following tables display the total program NEB and NEI savings from each
facility type.

Evaluation Report 27

Table 3-15: Office Kit Lighting NEBs and NEIs
Facility Measure
Verified
Annual NEBs
($)
Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Office
9W A19 $31.75 3.95 -264.16
8W BR30 N/A N/A N/A
Exit Sign LED $0.00 1.56 -183.24
Total $31.75 5.51 -447.40
Table 3-16: Restaurant Kit Lighting NEBs and NEIs
Facility Measure
Verified
Annual NEBs
($)
Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Restaurant
9W A19 $1.74 0.64 -23.07
8W BR30 N/A N/A N/A
Exit Sign LED $0.00 0.79 -51.56
Total $1.74 1.43 -74.63
Table 3-17: Retail Kit Lighting NEBs and NEIs
Facility Measure
Verified
Annual NEBs
($)
Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Retail
9W A19 $3.82 0.69 -65.73
8W BR30 $2.97 2.08 -197.20
Exit Sign LED $0.00 0.27 -35.29
Total $6.78 3.04 -298.21
The Evaluators applied the ISRs for each of the estimates above. The kits offered through the program
displayed a total of $40.28 in annual NEBs, 4.88 kW savings, and 406.28 Therms penalty for the program.
Table 3-18 Total Lighting Measure NEBs and NEIs Across Kits
Verified
Annual
NEBs
Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
$40.28 4.88 -406.28
3.3.2 Hot Water
The Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program provides a form of hot water measure in each of the three
facility type kits. A bathroom and/or kitchen faucet aerator is included in each kit (1.0 GPM and 1.5
GPM, respectively). One pre-rinse spray valve is also included in each restaurant kit. Table 3-19 further
defines the hot water measures included in the kits and savings source methodology utilized to evaluate
energy savings for each measure.

Evaluation Report 28

Table 3-19: Hot Water Measure Description
Measure Description Savings Source
Faucet Aerator (1 GPM) A low flow faucet aerator with a GPM of 1.
Intended to be installed in a restroom. IL v9 TRM Section 4.3.2
Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) A low flow faucet aerator with a GPM of 1.5.
Intended for use in the kitchen. IL v9 TRM Section 4.3.2
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve A pre-rinse spray valve to be installed in a
commercial kitchen.
RTF UES
ComCookingPreRinseSprayValve_v2_5
Table 3-20 summarizes the verified electric energy savings for the hot water measures.
Table 3-20: Hot Water Measures Verified Electric Savings
Measure Facility Type
Claimed
Savings
(kWh)
Verified
Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Bathroom Faucet Aerator
(1 GPM)
Office 20,598 11,080 53.79%
Restaurant 53,170 25,601 48.15%
Retail 1,494 2,689 180.00%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator
(1.5 GPM)
Office 14,456 9,665 66.85%
Restaurant 63,753 12,281 19.26%
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Restaurant 27,879 15,433 55.36%
Total 181,350 76,749 42.32%
The hot water measures displayed verified savings of 76,749 kWh with a realization rate of 42%
compared to the claimed savings for these measures. The Evaluators summarize the measure-specific in-
service rates and verified savings for the hot water measures in the sections below.
3.3.2.1 In-Service Rates
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for the hot water measures. The
Evaluators randomly selected a subset of participant customers to survey for simple verification of
installed measure. Table 3-21 displays the resulting verified ISRs for each of the hot water measures of
the program.
Table 3-21: Hot Water Measures Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Office Restaurant Retail In-Service
Rate
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 24% 45% 60% 31%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 29% 15% - 24%
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve - 55% - 55%
3.3.2.2 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the hot water measures.
The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the pre-rinse spray valves and the IL
v9 TRM for the faucet aerators along with surveyed ISRs to estimate program savings for these
measures. The Evaluators employed the following sources to calculate verified savings for the measures:
◼ Bathroom faucet aerator: Illinois TRM Section 4.3.2

Evaluation Report 29

◼ Kitchen faucet aerator: Illinois TRM Section 4.3.2
◼ Pre-rinse spray valve: ComCookingPreRinseSprayValve_v2_5
The verified savings for the measure are 76,749 kWh with a realization rate of 42%, as displayed in Table
3-20. The expected savings used to determine the realization rate were found by multiplying the savings
per measure of the hot water measures included in kits by the total number of each measure sent out in
kits during PY2021. The verified savings were determined by applying the ISR from the survey responses.
The following tables (Table 3-22 and Table 3-23 specify the expected and adjusted savings for each hot
water measure per kit by facility type.
These tables detail savings with an assumed ISR of 100% to illustrate the difference in expected and
adjusted savings. The Evaluators found the expected savings assumptions for the bathroom, faucet
aerators, and pre-rinse spray valves were appropriate and valid, and therefore did not apply
adjustments to IPC expected savings for these measures. The Evaluators concluded that the adjusted
RTF savings value of 321.78 kWh utilized by IPC to calculate pre-rinse spray valve savings was
appropriate and therefore a 100% realization rate is also displayed for this measure.
Table 3-22: Office Kit Adjusted Hot Water Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR,
100% Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Adjusted
kWh Savings
(100% ISR,
100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR, 100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Office
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) (One) 64.34 64.34 100.00%
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) (Two) 64.34 64.34 100.00%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) (One) 92.60 92.60 100.00%
Total 221.29 221.29 100.00%
Table 3-23: Restaurant Kit Adjusted Hot Water Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR,
100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Adjusted
kWh
Savings
(100% ISR,
100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR, 100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Restaurant
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) (One) 326.21 326.21 100.00%
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) (Two) 326.21 326.21 100.00%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) (One) 469.47 469.47 100.00%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) (Two) 469.47 469.47 100.00%
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve (One) 321.78 321.78 100.00%
Total 1,913.14 1,913.14 100.00%

Evaluation Report 30

Table 3-24: Retail Kit Adjusted Hot Water Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR,
100% Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Adjusted
kWh Savings
(100% ISR,
100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR, 100%
Electric
Water Heat
Saturation)
Retail Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) (One) 93.94 93.94 100.00%
Total 93.94 93.94 100.00%
The tables above display 100% realization rates between expected and adjusted savings, for the hot
water measures. Therefore, the discrepancy in the verified savings realization rates (42%, displayed in
Table 3-20) stem almost solely from the difference in assumed and verified ISRs and electric water heat
saturation rates.
3.3.2.3 Non-Energy Benefits and Non-Energy Impacts
As part of the evaluation, the Evaluators estimated NEIs resulting from the hot water measures offered
through the program. There were no resulting NEBs for the hot water measures through the IL TRM. The
Evaluators estimated the NEIs using the savings sources defined in Table 3-9.
For the hot water measures, the Evaluators estimated secondary kWh savings, kW savings, and Therms
savings as defined in the IL TRM. The following tables display the total program NEI savings from each
facility type.

Evaluation Report 31

Table 3-25: Office Kit Hot Water Measure NEIs
Facility Measure Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Verified
Water
Savings
(Gallons)
Office
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 0.00 0.87 352.34
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 0.00 0.76 252.14
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve N/A N/A N/A
Total 0.01 1.63 604.48
Table 3-26: Restaurant Kit Hot Water Measure NEIs
Facility Measure Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Verified
Water
Savings
(Gallons)
Restaurant
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 2.79 1,917.65 805,058.71
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 1.34 920.15 316,856.95
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve 0.00 1,014.19 387,427.98
Total 4.13 3,852.00 1,509,343.63
Table 3-27: Retail Kit Hot Water Measure NEIs
Facility Measure Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Verified
Water
Savings
(Gallons)
Retail
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 0.32 134.26 37,576.62
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) N/A N/A N/A
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve N/A N/A N/A
Total 0.32 134.26 37,576.62
The Evaluators applied the ISRs for each of the estimates above. The kits offered through the program
displayed a total of 4.46 kW savings and 3,987.89 Therms savings, and 1,547,524 gallons of water
savings for the program.
Table 3-28: Total Hot Water Measure NEIs Across Kits
Verified kW
Savings
Verified
Therms
Savings
Verified
Water
Savings
(Gallons)
4.46 3,987.89 1,547,524.73
3.3.3 Advanced Power Strip
The Commercial Saving Kits Program includes (1) advanced power strip in each of the office kits sent to
participants. Table 3-29 further summarizes the measure.

Evaluation Report 32

Table 3-29: Advanced Power Strip Measure Description
Measure Description
Impact
Analysis
Methodology
Advanced Power Strip Advanced Power Strip which turns off power to
equipment when not in use. RTF UES
Table 3-30 summarizes the verified electric energy savings the advance power strip measure.
Table 3-30: Advanced Power Strip Verified Electric Savings
Measure Facility Claimed
Savings (kWh)
Verified Savings
(kWh)
Realization
Rate
Advanced Power Strip Office 38,473 26,100 67.84%
Total 38,473 26,100 67.84%
The advanced power strip measure displayed verified savings of 26,100 kWh with a realization rate of
68% compared to the claimed savings for the measure. The Evaluators summarize the in-service rate
and verified savings for the advanced power strip measure in the sections below.
3.3.3.1 In-Service Rates
This section describes the results of the verification surveys completed for this measure. Advanced
power strips were provided in the office kits through the program. The restaurant and retail kits did not
provide this measure. Participants who had received the advanced power strip in their kit were asked if
the measure has been installed or if there were any plans to install the measure in the future. Table 3-21
displays the resulting ISRs for the advanced power strips.
Table 3-31: Advanced Power Strip Verification Survey ISR Results
Measure Office Restaurant Retail Total
Advanced Power Strip 63% N/A N/A 63%

3.3.3.2 Verified Savings
This section summarizes the verified impact results of the impact evaluation for the advanced power
strip measure. The Evaluators reviewed and applied the current RTF UES values for the advanced power
strip measure:
◼ ComAdvancedPowerStrips_v4-1
The verified savings for the measure is 26,100 kWh with a realization rate of 68%, as displayed in Table
3-30. The expected savings used to determine the realization rate were found by multiplying the savings
per measure for advanced power strips included in kits by the total number of each measure sent out in
kits during PY2021. The verified savings were determined by applying the ISR from the survey responses.
The discrepancy between claimed and verified savings results from a difference in assumed and verified
ISR.

Evaluation Report 33

The table below details savings with an assumed ISR of 100% to illustrate the difference in expected and
adjusted savings for the advanced power strip measure. For this measure, the Evaluators updated the
expected savings to reference the value present in the RTF workbook for advanced power strips.
Table 3-32: Office Kit Adjusted Savings
Facility Measure
Expected
Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh Savings
(100% ISR)
Adjusted
kWh
Realization
Rate (100%
ISR)
Office Advanced Power Strip 64.80 65.00 100.31%
Total 64.80 65.00 100.31%
The table above display near-100% realization rate between expected and adjusted savings for the
advanced power strip measure in the office kits. Therefore, the discrepancy in the verified savings
realization rate stems almost solely from the difference in assumed and verified ISRs.
3.3.3.3 Non-Energy Benefits and Non-Energy Impacts
As part of the evaluation, the Evaluators aimed to estimate NEBs and NEIs resulting from the advanced
power strip measure offered through the program. However, there were no resulting NEBs or NEIs for
the advanced power strips through the RTF.
3.4 Potential Unified Kit Results
The Evaluators present the following findings to reflect how in-service rates and verified savings would
be displayed if the measures provided in the facility-type kits were aggregated into one unified kit. The
purpose of this review is to assist IPC with expected savings for the program going forward in which one
unified kit will be delivered to participating small businesses, regardless of facility type. In this review,
the Evaluators summarize findings for the following unified kit contents:
Table 3-33: Potential Unified Kit Contents
Measure End Use Units Included in
Unified Kit
9W A19
Lighting
2
8W BR30 2
Exit Sign LED 1
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) Hot Water 1
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 1
Because verified savings requires facility-dependent inputs, the expected savings per kit is calculated
using facility-level assumptions on participation, electric water heat saturation, and in-service rates. The
Evaluators summarize the assumed inputs in Table 3-34 and Table 3-35, which summarize participant
responses from the program year 2021 impact surveys conducted by the Evaluator.
Table 3-34: Assumed Facility-Level Participant Distribution
Facility Type Weight of
Participation

Evaluation Report 34

Office 70%
Restaurant 24%
Retail 6%
Table 3-35: Assumed Facility-Level Electric Water Heat Saturation
Facility Type Electric Water
Heat Saturation
Office 56%
Restaurant 40%
Retail 90%
Table: 3-36 summarizes the in-service rates displayed for the unified kit measure contents. The in-
service rates are a blended rate summarizing the customer survey response installation rates for each
business type and number of measures.
Table: 3-36 Adjusted Measure Level In-Service Rates Based on Number of Units
Measure End Use
Units
included
in the
kit
Office Restaurant Retail
9W A19
Lighting
2 63% 10% 90%
8W BR30 2 40% 40% 40%
Exit Sign LED 1 10% 15% 20%
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0
GPM) Hot Water
1 37% 70% 60%
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5
GPM) 1 29% 30% 29%
Using the above assumptions on participation by facility type, ISR, and electric water heater saturation,
the Evaluators estimate that a unified kit with the contents specified in Table 3-37 receive the following
unadjusted and adjusted verified savings:
Table 3-37: Unified Kit Expected Savings by Measure
Measure End Use
Units
Included
in Unified
Kit
Expected
Unadjusted
Savings (Assumed
100% ISR, 100%
Electric Water
Heat Saturation)
Expected
Adjusted
Savings (Verified
ISR and Electric
Water Heat
Saturation
Applied)
9W A19
Lighting
2 27.73 12.75
8W BR30 2 187.86 75.14
Exit Sign LED 1 93.13 11.16
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) Hot Water 1 129.08 34.21
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 1 184.56 26.00
Total - 622.36 159.26
The review of a unified kit resulted in 159 kWh verified savings per kit. This estimate assumes that
facility-level participant distribution remains aligned with those displayed in program year 2021, and

Evaluation Report 35

that in-service rates and electric water heat saturation rates are consistent with those displayed in
program year 2021.
4. Process Evaluation Results
The Evaluators completed a process evaluation for Idaho Power’s Commercial Energy-Saving Kits
Program to gain a better understanding of customers’ experiences with the program. The process
evaluation included interviews with the CSK program staff as well as customer surveys.
The findings of the following sections summarize the results of those interviews and surveys. Interview
results are included in Section 4.1 while survey results are included in Section 4.2.
4.1 Program Design and Operations
Evaluators interviewed four Idaho Power Staff to learn more about the history, purpose, and design of
the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits program. Interviewees included two analysts and two program
specialists, all of whom are involved in the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits program.
Idaho Power first launched the Commercial Savings Kit program in 2018 as a means of providing
additional services to small businesses. The program was meant for smaller, mom-and-pop type
businesses.
During the initial roll out year, customers learned about and received the commercial savings kits in one
of two ways: 1) as a leave behind item following a visit from Idaho Power field staff person, or 2) a call
campaign marketing effort. Initially program staff had wanted to use the kits as a means of improving
engagement with small businesses, offering them a chance to start a conversation with customers and
tell them about the utility’s other offerings. Thus, the “leave behind” model had initially been the
preferred distribution model. However, as the program progressed, staff found that “leave behind”
model proved difficult from a tracking standpoint. Field staff were provided boxes of kits to distribute to
customers and instructed on how to track which customers received kits; however, the tracking system
was not streamlined and not all kits were properly accounted for. As the program entered its third year
and COVID-19 emerged, much of the distribution moved to call center campaign. Although this method
of distribution removed the personal touch and conversation starter of the field person visits, this model
enabled Idaho Power staff to better track kit recipients.
The Commercial Energy-Saving Kits program offered three different types of kits based on business type.
Table 4-1 demonstrates the types of measures included in each kit. Staff determined which measures
were included in the kits based on vendor recommendations and cost effectiveness of each measure. In
addition to the energy efficiency measures, kits also included an educational component that provided
customers with various tips and suggestions on how to save energy.

Evaluation Report 36

Table 4-1: Kit Measures and quantities
Measure Office Restaurant Retail
9W A19 LED 2 2 3
8W BR30 LED 0 2 0
LED Exit Sign 2 2 2
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM) 2 1 2
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (1.5 GPM) 1 1 2
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve 0 0 1
Advanced Power Strip 1 0 0

Moving forward, Idaho Power plans to send one universal kit to all small business types.
4.2 Commercial Savings Kit Customer Survey Results
Program participants were contacted via email to complete the survey. Idaho Power provided
evaluators a list of 905 customers. Of those 905 customers, evaluators sent the survey to 600 unique
participants. The remaining 305 customers did not receive a survey either because they did not have an
email address on file, or they were a non-unique contact. Participants were contacted up to three times
via email: one initial invitation and two follow-up reminders.
4.2.1 Survey Respondents
In total, 98 recipients responded to the survey for a 16.3% response rate. The majority of respondents
were offices, followed by restaurants, and retail stores (Table 4-2). Of those 98 respondents, 90
remembered receiving a kit and completed the survey. The eight respondents who did not remember
receiving a kit were participants within the office facility type.
Table 4-2: Respondent Type
Facility Type Total Possible
(n)
Proportion of
Total
Respondents
(n)
Proportion of
Respondents
Office 432 72% 68 67%
Restaurant 124 21% 20 22%
Retail 44 7% 10 11%
Total 600 100% 98 16.3%
Less than two-thirds of respondents were the owner of the business (Figure ).

Evaluation Report 37

Figure 4-1: Respondents' Role (n=90)

The Evaluators found that 60% of responding businesses have gas heating (60.2%) (Figure 4-2) and more
than half of responding business have electric water heating (56.1%) (Figure 4-3).
Figure 4-2: Heating Fuel Type (n=90)

20.0%
20.0%
60.0%
10.0%
30.0%
60.0%
11.7%
1.7%
28.3%
58.3%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%
Other
I don’t know
Electric
Gas
Office Restaurant Retail

Evaluation Report 38

Figure 4-3: Water Heater Fuel Type (n=90)

4.2.1.1 Program Satisfaction
The vast majority of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Commercial Energy
Saving Kits program (88.4%, n=76). Additionally, respondents were generally satisfied with the steps
they had to take to receive the kit, as well as the items included in the kit (Figure 4-4). Among those
respondents who expressed dissatisfaction with the kit, the primary complaint was that the measures
were not useful to them and thus the kits felt wasteful.
Figure 4-4: Program Satisfaction (n=86)

Almost 80% of respondents found the installation guide helpful (78.9%, n=71). Remaining respondents
noted that they did not need the guide because installation was easy or self-explanatory. Under two-
thirds of respondents indicated that participation through the Commercial Energy-Saving Kits Program
increased their satisfaction with Idaho Power as their utility provider (61.6%, n=53), and about half of
respondents were interested in learning more about other energy efficiency opportunities through
Idaho Power (51.6%, n=44).
90.0%
10.0%
5.0%
40.0%
55.0%
3.3%
8.3%
56.7%
31.7%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%
Other
I don’t know
Electric
Gas
Office Restaurant Retail

Evaluation Report 39

4.2.1.2 Program Awareness
Most respondents learned about the kits program through Idaho Power either via a mailing or bill
insert (30%, n=27), email (24.4%, n=22), the Idaho Power website (21.1%, n=19), or a customer service
representative (16.6%, n=14) (Figure ). Respondents indicated that email and mail/bill inserts are their
preferred method of communication (Figure 4-6).
Figure 4-5: Program Awareness (n=90)

Figure 4-6: Preferred Awareness Method (n=90)

4.2.1.3 Program Participation
The majority of respondents who remembered receiving a kit (n=90), indicated they installed some of
the measures from the kit (95.6%, n=86). LED retrofit kits for exits signs were the most common item

Evaluation Report 40

not installed by respondents, followed by pre-rinse spray valve, low-flow kitchen faucet aerators, and
low-flow bathroom faucet aerators.
Table 4-3: Number of respondents who did not install some/all of a measure
Measure
Possible
respondents
(n)
Respondents
who did not
install (n)
Respondents
who did not
install (%)
LED general screw in bulbs 90 3 3.3%
LED BR30 bulbs 10 3 30.0%
Advanced power strip 60 5 8.3%
Pre-rinse spray valve 20 9 45.0%
Low-flow bathroom faucet aerators 90 36 40.0%
Low-flow kitchen faucet aerator 90 36 40.0%
LED retrofit kits for exit signs 90 62 68.9%
Respondents were asked why they chose not to install all or some of each of the measures provided in
the kit. In general, “I did not need the item”, “the item did not fit”, and “I have not had time to install
the item” were the most popular reasons for not installing the exit signs, pre-rinse spray valve, and
aerators (Figure ). LED general screw in bulbs and advanced power strips were not included in Figure 4-7
due to low number of no installs.
Figure 4-7: Reasons for not installing

Prior to receiving the kit, many respondents had purchased or planned to purchase a variety of energy
efficient items (Figure 4-8). Table 4-4 demonstrates that the most popular reason respondents listed for
not buying each of the measures prior to receiving the kit was because they did not know enough about
the item.
13.9%
13.9%
11.1%
17.7%
19.4%
33.3%
44.4%
48.4%
25.0%
22.2%
33.3%
8.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Low-flow bathroom faucet aerators (n=36)
Low-flow kitchen faucet aerator (n=36)
Pre-rinse spray valve (n=9)
LED retrofit kits for exit signs (n=62)
Do not like the appearance of the item Have not had time to install
I did not need the item Gave item to someone else
Waiting for my current item to die The item did not fit
I already had an energy efficient version of the item I took the item home
I don't know

Evaluation Report 41

Figure 4-8: Energy efficient items purchasing habits

Table 4-4: Reasons why respondents did not previously purchase energy efficient items
Measure Reason Proportion
LED general screw in bulbs (n=27) Didn’t know enough about it 51.9%
LED BR30 bulbs (n=5) Didn’t know enough about it/
Didn’t like the appearance
40.0%
40.0%
Bathroom faucet aerator (n=78) Didn’t know enough about it 69.2%
Kitchen faucet aerator (n=65) Didn’t know enough about it 67.7%
Pre-rinse spray valve (n=10) Didn’t know enough about it 60.0%
Advanced Power Strip (n=22) Didn’t know enough about it 59.1%
LED exit signs (n=78) Didn’t know enough about it 76.9%
When asked what additional items they would like to have received, respondents listed of variety of
energy efficient items (Table 4-5). Among the items mentioned, occupancy sensors and timers for lights,
air filters, smart thermostats, and weatherization measures were the only items listed that were not
included in any of the kits. The Evaluators summarize the responses in the table below.
Table 4-5: Requested Measures
Measure n
LED lights 17
Occupancy sensors/timers 9
Outdoor lighting 5
Advanced power strips 5
Weatherization 3
Solar measures 3
Air filters 1
Exit signs 1
Smart thermostat 1
Faucet aerator 1

Evaluation Report 42

5. Appendix A: Participant Survey
This section provides a copy of the survey sent to participants of the Commercial Energy Saving Kits
Program.
5.1 Pre-Defined Variables
Prepopulated variables are shown in all caps enclosed in brackets, e.g., [PREDEFINED VARIABLE]

Variable Definition
CONTACT_NAME Premise Customer Name
BUSINESS_TYPE Office=1; Restaurant=2; Retail=3
LOCATION Business Location

5.2 Email Survey Message
Subject: Invitation to Help Improve Idaho Power’s Commercial Energy-Saving Kit Program
Hello ${e://Field/CONTACT_NAME},

Thank you for participating in Idaho Power’s Commercial Energy-Saving Kit Program. Idaho Power is
interested in your feedback about the program and invites you to take an online survey to let us know
how we can improve it!

The survey should take no more than 10 minutes of your time, and as a thank you we are providing a
$25 gift card to the first 75 respondents who complete the survey.
Follow this link to the Survey:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
${l://SurveyURL}

If you require technical assistance, please contact Tiffani Tonso at [e-mail]. In
addition, if you have any question regarding this survey request, please contact Idaho Power customer
service at 208-388-2323 or 1-800-488-6151. You may also contact Chad Severson at Idaho Power at 208-
388-2398 or by email at [e-mail].

Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,
Tiffani Tonso

Evaluation Report 43

5.3 Survey

Start of Block: Qualification Questions
Q1 Our records indicate that your business located at ${e://Field/LOCATION} received a free energy
saving kit from Idaho Power. This kit included measures like LED lighting, faucet aerators, and LED ‘Exit’
sign retrofit kit.

Do you recall receiving this kit?
o Yes (1) o No (2)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If Our records indicate that your business located at ${e://Field/LOCATION} received a free energy s... = No
Q2 Is there someone else in your business who may be able to answer questions about the kit?
o Yes (1) o No (2)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If Is there someone else in your business who may be able to answer questions about the kit? = No

Q3 What is the main fuel type used for heating the building/facility?
o Electric (1) o Gas (2) o Other, please specify: (3) __________________________________________________ o I don’t know (98)

Evaluation Report 44

Display This Question:
If Is there someone else in your business who may be able to answer questions about the kit? = No

Q4 What is the main fuel type used for heating the building/facility's water?
o Electric (1) o Gas (2) o Other, please specify: (3) __________________________________________________ o I don’t know (98)

Display This Question:
If Is there someone else in your business who may be able to answer questions about the kit? = Yes
Q5 Can you provide me with their contact information?
o Name (1) __________________________________________________ o Email (2) __________________________________________________ o Phone Number (3) __________________________________________________

End of Block: Qualification Questions
Start of Block: Commercial Kit Program Awareness

Q6 This first set of questions are about how you became aware of the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit
Program.

What is your job title or role?
o Office Manager (1) o Store Manger (2) o Executive (3) o Assistant (4) o Food Service Staff (5) o Owner (6) o Other, please specify: (7) __________________________________________________

Evaluation Report 45

Page Break

Q7 How did you learn about Commercial Energy-Saving Kit Program?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ Idaho Power customer service representative or energy advisor (1) ▢ Idaho Power website (2) ▢ Email from Idaho Power (3) ▢ Mailing/bill insert from Idaho Power (4) ▢ Contractor (5) ▢ Friends or colleagues (6) ▢ Internet search (e.g., Google) (7) ▢ Media advertisement (internet, radio, television) (8) ▢ Other, please specify: (9) __________________________________________________ ▢ ⊗I don’t know (98)

Page Break

Q8 What are the best ways to reach companies like yours with information about incentives for energy
savings opportunities, like the ones offered through the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit Program?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ Visits from Idaho Power staff (1) ▢ Email (2) ▢ Mailings/bill inserts (3) ▢ Phone (4) ▢ Social media posts (5) ▢ Media advertisements (internet, radio, television) (6) ▢ Visits from contractors (7) ▢ Other, please specify: (8) __________________________________________________

Page Break

Evaluation Report 46

Q9 The kit you received included an installation guide. Did you find the installation guide helpful?
o Yes (1) o No (2) o Did not receive an installation guide (3) o I don’t know (98)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If The kit you received included an installation guide. Did you find the installation guide helpful? = No
Q10 What can Idaho Power do to improve the installation guide?
_______________________________________________________________

End of Block: Commercial Kit Program Awareness
Start of Block: Small Business Energy Kit Installation
Q11 This set of questions asks you about the energy saving kit you received through Idaho Power’s
Commercial Energy-Saving Kit Program.

Were you able to install any of the items in the kit at your business located at ${e://Field/LOCATION}?
o Yes (1) o No (2)

Display This Question:
If This set of questions asks you about the energy saving kit you received through Idaho Power’s Com... = No
Q12 What were the reasons or circumstances that prevented you from installing the items in the kit at
your business?
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Small Business Energy Kit Installation
Start of Block: Kit Install

Evaluation Report 47

Q13 Below is a list of items that were included in your kit. Of these items how many did you install in
your business?

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Or BUSINESS_TYP = 3

Q14 How many of the (2) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business?
▼ None (0) ... I don't know (98)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2

Q15 How many of the (3) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business?
▼ None (0) ... I don't know (98)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 3

16 How many of the (2) LED BR30 (flood lights) did you install in your business?
▼ None (0) ... I don't know (98)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Or BUSINESS_TYP = 2

Q17 How many of the (2) low flow bathroom faucet aerators did you install in your business?
▼ None (0) ... I don't know (98)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 3

Q18 Did you install the (1) low flow bathroom faucet aerator in your business?
▼ Yes (1) ... I don't know (98)

Evaluation Report 48

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1

Q19 Did you install the (1) low flow kitchen faucet aerator in your business?
▼ Yes (1) ... I don't know (98)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2

Q20 How many of the (2) low flow kitchen faucet aerator did you install in your business?
▼ None (0) ... I don't know (98)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Q21 Did you install the (1) pre-rinse spray valve in your business?
▼ Yes (1) ... I don't know (3)

Display This Question:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Q22 Did you install the (1) advanced power strip in your business?
▼ Yes (1) ... I don't know (3)

Q23 How many of the (2) LED retrofit kits for exit signs did you install in your business?
▼ None (0) ... I don't know (98)

Evaluation Report 49

Display This Question:
If How many of the (2) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = None
Or How many of the (3) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = None
Or How many of the (2) LED BR30 (flood lights) did you install in your business? = None
Or How many of the (2) low flow bathroom faucet aerators did you install in your business? = None
Or Did you install the (1) low flow bathroom faucet aerator in your business? = No
Or Did you install the (1) low flow kitchen faucet aerator in your business? = No
Or How many of the (2) low flow kitchen faucet aerator did you install in your business? = None
Or Did you install the (1) pre-rinse spray valve in your business? = No
Or Did you install the (1) advanced power strip in your business? = No
Or How many of the (2) LED retrofit kits for exit signs did you install in your business? = None
Q24 Why didn't you install the following energy saving items at your business?
(Please select all that apply for each item. Use the right arrow next to the statement box to view

Evaluation Report 50

additional items. Once all items have been answered, please click the right arrow at the bottom of the
page to continue with the survey.)
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = None
Or How many of the (3) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = None
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED BR30 (flood lights) did you install in your business? = None
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) low flow bathroom faucet aerators did you install in your business? = None
Or Did you install the (1) low flow bathroom faucet aerator in your business? = No
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) low flow kitchen faucet aerator in your business? = No
Or How many of the (2) low flow kitchen faucet aerator did you install in your business? = None
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) pre-rinse spray valve in your business? = No
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) advanced power strip in your business? = No
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED retrofit kits for exit signs did you install in your business? = None

Evaluation Report 51

Do not like
the
appearance
of the item
(1)
Have
not
had
time
to
install
(2)
Item
was
broken
(3)
I did
not
need
the
item
(4)
Gave
item to
someone
else (5)
Waiting
for my
current
item to
die (6)
The
item
did
not
fit
(7)
I
already
had an
energy
efficient
version
of the
item (8)
I took
the
item
home
(9)
I
don't
know
(10)
Display This
Choice:
If How
many of the
(2) LED
general
purpose
screw light
bulbs did
you install
in your
business? =
None
Or
How many
of the (3)
LED general
purpose
screw light
bulbs did
you install
in your
business? =
None
LED general
screw in
bulbs (1)
o o o o o o o o o o

Evaluation Report 52

Display This
Choice:
If How
many of the
(2) LED
BR30 (flood
lights) did
you install
in your
business? =
None
LED BR30
bulbs (2)
o o o o o o o o o o
Display This
Choice:
If How
many of the
(2) low flow
bathroom
faucet
aerators did
you install
in your
business? =
None
Or Did
you install
the (1) low
flow
bathroom
faucet
aerator in
your
business? =
No
Low-flow
bathroom
faucet
aerators (3)
o o o o o o o o o o

Evaluation Report 53

Display This
Choice:
If Did
you install
the (1) low
flow
kitchen
faucet
aerator in
your
business? =
No
Or
How many
of the (2)
low flow
kitchen
faucet
aerator did
you install
in your
business? =
None
Low-flow
kitchen
faucet
aerator (4)
o o o o o o o o o o
Display This
Choice:
If Did
you install
the (1) pre-
rinse spray
valve in
your
business? =
No
Pre-rinse
spray valve
(5)
o o o o o o o o o o

Evaluation Report 54

Display This
Choice:
If Did
you install
the (1)
advanced
power
strip in your
business? =
No
Advanced
power strip
(6)
o o o o o o o o o o
Display This
Choice:
If How
many of
the (2) LED
retrofit kits
for exit
signs did
you
install in
your
business? =
None
LED retrofit
kits for exit
signs (7)
o o o o o o o o o o

End of Block: Kit Install
Start of Block: Free Ridership

Q25 The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient items in
your kit.

Evaluation Report 55

Before you received your energy savings kit, had your organization purchased any of the following in
the past…
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 3
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Or BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Yes (1) No (2) I don't know (98)
LED general purpose
screw in light bulbs (1) o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 3
LED BR30 flood lights (2)
o o o
Low-flow bathroom
faucet aerators (3) o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Or BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Low-flow kitchen faucet
aerator (4)
o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Pre-rinse spray valve (5)
o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Advanced power strip (6)
o o o
LED retrofit kits for exit
signs (7) o o o

Evaluation Report 56

Q26 Before receiving your energy savings kit, did you have plans to purchase any…
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 3
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Or BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Yes (1) No (2) I don't know (98)
LED general purpose
screw in light bulbs (1) o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 3
LED BR30 flood lights (2)
o o o
Low-flow bathroom
faucet aerators (3) o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Or BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Low-flow kitchen faucet
aerator (4)
o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 2
Pre-rinse spray valve (5)
o o o
Display This Choice:
If BUSINESS_TYP = 1
Advanced power strip (6)
o o o
LED retrofit kits for exit
signs (7) o o o

Evaluation Report 57

Page Break

Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... = LED
general purpose screw in light bulbs [ No ]
Q27 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/1} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/1} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/1} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/1} (4)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... = LED
BR30 flood lights [ No ]
Q28 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/2} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/2} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/2} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/2} (4)

Page Break

Evaluation Report 58

Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... = Low-flow
bathroom faucet aerators [ No ]
Q29 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/3} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/3} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/3} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/3} (4)

Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... = Low-flow
kitchen faucet aerator [ No ]
Q30 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/4} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/4} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/4} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/4} (4)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... = Pre-rinse
spray valve [ No ]
Q31 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/5} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/5} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/5} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/5} (4)

Page Break

Evaluation Report 59

Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... =
Advanced power strip [ No ]
Q32 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/6} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/6} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/6} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/6} (4)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you to think back to before you received the energy efficient item... = LED
retrofit kits for exit signs [ No ]
Q33 Why have you not purchased ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/7} before?
(Please select all that apply.)
▢ They cost too much (1) ▢ Didn’t know where to purchase ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/7} (2) ▢ Didn’t know enough about ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/7} (3) ▢ Don’t like their appearance or the quality of the ${Q25/ChoiceDescription/7} (4)

End of Block: Free Ridership
Start of Block: Lost Opportunity Analysis

Evaluation Report 60

Display This Question:
If How many of the (2) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = 2
Or How many of the (3) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = 3
Or How many of the (2) LED BR30 (flood lights) did you install in your business? = 2
Or How many of the (2) low flow bathroom faucet aerators did you install in your business? = 2
Or Did you install the (1) low flow bathroom faucet aerator in your business? = Yes
Or Did you install the (1) low flow kitchen faucet aerator in your business? = Yes
Or How many of the (2) low flow kitchen faucet aerator did you install in your business? = 2
Or Did you install the (1) pre-rinse spray valve in your business? = Yes
Or Did you install the (1) advanced power strip in your business? = Yes
Or How many of the (2) LED retrofit kits for exit signs did you install in your business? = 2

Q34 The next set of questions asks you about additional measures you may have installed if more
measures were provided.

How many more of each would you have installed at ${e://Field/LOCATION}, if you were able to
request more?
(Please provide a numeric value.)
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = 2
Or How many of the (3) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you install in your business? = 3
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED BR30 (flood lights) did you install in your business? = 2
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) low flow bathroom faucet aerators did you install in your business? = 2
Or Did you install the (1) low flow bathroom faucet aerator in your business? = Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) low flow kitchen faucet aerator in your business? = Yes
Or How many of the (2) low flow kitchen faucet aerator did you install in your business? = 2
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) pre-rinse spray valve in your business? = Yes
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) advanced power strip in your business? = Yes
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED retrofit kits for exit signs did you install in your business? = 2

Evaluation Report 61

Additional Quantity (1)
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you
install in your business? = 2
Or How many of the (3) LED general purpose screw light bulbs did you
install in your business? = 3
LED general purpose screw bulbs (1)
◼
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED BR30 (flood lights) did you install in your
business? = 2
LED BR30 flood lights (2)
◼
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) low flow bathroom faucet aerators did you
install in your business? = 2
Or Did you install the (1) low flow bathroom faucet aerator in your
business? = Yes
Low-flow bathroom faucet aerators (3)
◼
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) low flow kitchen faucet aerator in your
business? = Yes
Or How many of the (2) low flow kitchen faucet aerator did you install
in your business? = 2
Low-flow kitchen faucet aerator (4)
◼

Evaluation Report 62

Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) pre-rinse spray valve in your business? = Yes
Pre-rinse spray valve (5)
◼
Display This Choice:
If Did you install the (1) advanced power strip in your business? = Yes
Advanced power strip (6)
◼
Display This Choice:
If How many of the (2) LED retrofit kits for exit signs did you install in
your business? = 2
LED retrofit kits for exit signs (7)
◼

Page Break

Evaluation Report 63

Q35 Idaho Power is considering adding additional items to the kit and would like your opinion of useful
items.

Please list any energy efficient items that you would install at your business if they were included in an
energy saving kit.
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Lost Opportunity Analysis
Start of Block: Kit Satisfaction

Q36 The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit
Program and Idaho Power more generally.
Please provide your satisfaction with each of the following:

1- Very
dissatisfied
(1)
2- Somewhat
dissatisfied
(2)
3- Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied
(3)
4- Somewhat
satisfied (4)
5- Very
satisfied (5)
I don't know
(98)
The types of
energy
efficient
items you
received in
the kit (1)
o o o o o o
The steps you
had to take
to receive
the kit (2)
o o o o o o
The
Commercial
Energy-
Saving Kit
program
overall (3)
o o o o o o
Idaho Power
as your utility
provider (4) o o o o o o

Evaluation Report 64

Page Break

Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = The
steps you had to take to receive the kit [ 1- Very dissatisfied ]
Or The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = The
steps you had to take to receive the kit [ 2- Somewhat dissatisfied ]
Or The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = The
Commercial Energy-Saving Kit program overall [ 1- Very dissatisfied ]
Or The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = The
Commercial Energy-Saving Kit program overall [ 2- Somewhat dissatisfied ]
Or The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = Idaho
Power as your utility provider [ 1- Very dissatisfied ]
Or The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = Idaho
Power as your utility provider [ 2- Somewhat dissatisfied ]
Q37 You indicated some dissatisfaction. Why were you dissatisfied?
________________________________________________________________

Page Break
Display This Question:
If The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = The
types of energy efficient items you received in the kit [ 1- Very dissatisfied ]
Or The next set of questions asks you about your satisfaction with the Commercial Energy-Saving Kit... = The
types of energy efficient items you received in the kit [ 2- Somewhat dissatisfied ]

Q38 You indicated dissatisfaction with the energy efficient items included in your kit. What measures or
changes to the measures would you like to see included?
________________________________________________________________

Page Break

Evaluation Report 65

Q39 How has the receipt of your energy-saving kit affected your satisfaction with Idaho Power as your
electrical provider?
o Greatly increased your satisfaction (1) o Somewhat increased your satisfaction (2) o Did not affect your satisfaction (3) o Somewhat decreased your satisfaction (4) o Greatly decreased your satisfaction (5) o I don’t know (98)

Q40 Would you like the Idaho Power team to contact you about other energy efficiency opportunities
available for you and your business?
o Yes (1) o No (2)

Display This Question:
If Would you like the Idaho Power team to contact you about other energy efficiency opportunities av... = Yes

Q41 Please provide the name and contact information of the best person to contact about additional
energy efficiency opportunities.
o Name (1) __________________________________________________ o Title (2) __________________________________________________ o Phone Number (3) __________________________________________________ o Email (4) __________________________________________________

End of Block: Kit Satisfaction
Start of Block: Fuel Type

Evaluation Report 66

Q42 This final set of questions ask you about your business.

What is the main fuel type used for heating the building/facility?
o Electric (1) o Gas (2) o Other, please specify: (3) __________________________________________________ o I don’t know (98)

Q43 What is the main fuel type used for heating the building/facility's water?
o Electric (1) o Gas (2) o Other, please specify: (3) __________________________________________________ o I don’t know (98)

End of Block: Fuel Type
Start of Block: About Your Organization

Q44 How would you describe your company’s facility located at ${e://Field/LOCATION}?
o Your company’s only location (1) o One of several locations owned by your company (2) o The headquarter location of a company with several locations (3) o I don’t know (98)

Page Break

Evaluation Report 67

Display This Question:
If How would you describe your company’s facility located at ${e://Field/LOCATION}? = One of several
locations owned by your company
Or How would you describe your company’s facility located at ${e://Field/LOCATION}? = The headquarter
location of a company with several locations

Q45 Did the company’s other locations also receive a Commercial Energy-Saving Kit from Idaho Power?
o Yes (1) o No (2) o I don’t know (98)

Page Break

Q46 Does your company pay the electric bill for this location?
o Yes (1) o No (2) o I don’t know (98)

Page Break
Q47 Do you have any other comments that you would like to relay to Idaho Power about energy
efficiency in the commercial and industrial sector or about their programs?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page Break

Evaluation Report 68

Q48 We are interested in speaking with customers who installed measures from the kit using a video
conference. To participate, you need to have a smart phone with access to the internet. In exchange, we
are providing a $50 gift card for customers selected to participate in this additional research. This is in
addition to the $25 gift card you will receive for completing this survey.

Are you interested in participating in this research?
o Yes (1) o No (2)

Page Break
Display This Question:
If We are interested in speaking with customers who installed measures from the kit using a video co... = Yes

Q49 Please provide the following information. If selected, we will contact you to arrange an
appointment time.
o Name (1) __________________________________________________ o Email (2) __________________________________________________ o Phone Number (3) __________________________________________________ o Best day(s) and time(s) to contact (4)
__________________________________________________

End of Block: About Your Organization
Start of Block: Gift Card Confirmation
Q50 Thank you for taking the time today to complete this survey. As stated in the email, we are
providing a $25 electronic gift card to the first 75 people who complete the survey as a thank you for a
timely response. The email address we have on file for you is ${e://Field/EMAIL}. Please confirm this
information:
o Yes, please send my electronic gift card to the above email (1) o No, please send my electronic gift card to the following email (2)
__________________________________________________
End of Block: Gift Card Confirmation

Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power Company
Commercial and Industrial Energy
Efficiency Program – New Construction
2021 Program Year Impact and Process Evaluation Results

November 8, 2022

ii Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 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 CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 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 ................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Process Recommendations ............................................................................................... 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Program Overview ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals ............................................................................................................... 7
3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1 Lighting............................................................................................................................ 13
3.2.2 HVAC .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.3 Controls ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.4 Compressed Air ............................................................................................................... 19
3.2.5 Building Shell .................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.6 Refrigeration .................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.7 Appliances with Electric Water Heating ........................................................................... 20
3.3 Review of PY2018 Impact Recommendations .......................................................................... 21
4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 22
4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 22
4.2 Process Review Results........................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1 Materials and Outreach Review ....................................................................................... 23
4.2.2 Contractor Interviews ....................................................................................................... 24

iv Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. PY2021 New Construction Offering Realization Rate ............................................................... 2
Table 2. PY2021 New Construction Offering Evaluation Activities ......................................................... 7
Table 3. PY2021 New Construction Offering Sampling Summary ........................................................ 10
Table 4. PY2021 Realization Rates for Measure Categories................................................................ 11
Table 5. PY2021 New Construction Lighting Impact Results Summary ............................................... 13
Table 6. PY2021 New Construction Air-Conditioning Impact Results Summary ................................... 16
Table 7. PY2021 New Construction Controls Impact Results Summary ............................................... 17
Table 8. PY2021 New Construction Compressed Air Impact Results Summary................................... 19
Table 9. PY2021 New Construction Building Shell Impact Results Summary ...................................... 19
Table 10. PY2021 New Construction Refrigeration Impact Results Summary ...................................... 20
Table 11. PY2021 New Construction Appliances Impact Results Summary ......................................... 20
Table 12. PY2018 CIEE New Construction Program Recommendations Review ................................. 21

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 3. C&I New Construction Participants and Savings by Program Year Rules ............................... 6
Figure 4. Process for Verifying Program Savings ................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Application Workbook—Controls Worksheet ......................................................................... 12
Figure 6. Process Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................ 22

v Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2021 impact and process evaluation of the New Construction offering 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 Sheree Willhite, Chad Severson, 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. 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, Graham Thorbrogger, Nathan Kwan, Andrew Spista, and Laura Meyer.

1 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2022 impact and process evaluation of the 2021 New Construction and Major Renovations (New
Construction) offering of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency (CIEE) program. The Idaho Power CIEE program provides a comprehensive menu of incentives and services to facilitate the implementation of cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial (C&I)
customers. Incentives cover retrofits, new construction and major renovation projects, and custom incentives for cost-effective projects not covered on the menu of incentives.
This report section consists of (1) an introduction describing the program, (2) methodology, and (3) key
findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results can be found in Section 3.0, with process results detailed in Section 4.0.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The New Construction offering provides incentives for designing and building better-than-code energy-
efficient features into new construction, major renovation, addition, expansion, or change-of-space projects. The New Construction offering, which originated in 2004, currently offers a menu of 33 measures in Idaho and 25 measures in Oregon, including efficient lighting and lighting controls, cooling, ventilation, building shell, controls, appliances, refrigeration, office equipment, and compressed air projects.
The program offers both customer and professional assistance incentives (PAI). Customer incentives are calculated based on eligibility criteria and applicable units for each specific measure; PAIs are available to architects and engineers for up to 20 percent of the participants' total incentive, with a maximum of $5,000 per application.
Customers complete the Preliminary Application tab of the New Construction application if they are interested in receiving New Construction incentives. Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information. Qualification specifications are shared with the design team, and projects are completed. Then customers finish the New Construction application process by submitting all required documentation and emailing it to Idaho Power. Post-
project verifications are conducted on ten percent of completed projects.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
To address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2021 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.
Figure 1. Impact Evaluation Activities

Tetra Tech also conducted a process evaluation for the New Construction offering; Figure 2 highlights the activities undertaken to address the process research objectives.
Review data and conduct sampling Complete desk reviews Conduct site verification Verify kilowatt-hour savings

2 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Figure 2. Process Evaluation Activities

1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The process and impact evaluation for the New Construction offering of the CIEE program found a
successfully run program that actively engages with the marketplace on new construction projects to impact the design and construction of new C&I facilities. The program stays current with code requirements and works with individual buildings to ensure they exceed code for the appropriate design and construction period. The program is historically heavily dependent on lighting, which will decrease as more projects in the pipeline update to IECC 2018 code.
The evaluation team found that recommendations from the previous evaluation have been sufficiently addressed. We also found slight adjustments to ex-ante savings claimed in the PY2021 program and limited opportunities for process improvements. Because the Idaho Power staff delivering this program have developed good documentation and are continually pursuing improvements, we found the Program Engineer had identified and addressed many of the findings from this evaluation before the evaluation team presented them. In addition, Idaho Power is proactively making some of the adjustment options for PY2022 program implementation that were identified through the PY2021 evaluation.
Overall, the impact evaluation found the program measures and savings are well supported and
documented. The evaluation team determined that the realization rate is 102.5 percent for the PY2021 New Construction program.
Table 1. PY2021 New Construction Offering Realization Rate
Program year Number of projects MWh claimed MWh evaluated Program realization rate
2021 95 17,536 17,971 102.5%
1.3.1 Impact Recommendations
The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Document project worksheets at stages throughout the process. Documenting the project calculations and worksheets at three consistent stages will support project understanding. The evaluation team recommends that documentation is filed at three primary stages of the program process: (1) at preliminary application, (2) at final application, and (3) at final claimed savings.
Documenting at these stages will make information available to understand project adjustment timing, purpose, and scale throughout the new construction process.
Program staff interviews Materials and outreach review Contractor interviews

3 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Increase program review and feedback of the submitted code-checking software, COMcheck. The COMcheck submittal, provided by the contractor, architect, or engineer, contains details about the
claimed components of the design and determines if they meet or exceed the code. It is most commonly used for lighting calculations. The program staff currently completes a review of the proposed lighting equipment; still, an additional review of minimum code selections used to determine
the calculation baseline will provide information to determine the consistency of applications to the program. The evaluation team recommends the information collected from the COMcheck review be used to engage with the contractors, architects, and engineers about preferred approaches for the
program.
Document the HVAC control systems that meet code and exceed code. Commercial HVAC systems are all designed based on the space requirements and can have systems that fit into one or more exemptions within the baseline code system. Understanding the baseline code and the exemptions in the context of determining what exceeds code can be complicated because some exemptions create a situation where a partial percentage of the installation total is required by code.
Documenting the HVAC controls installed to meet code and those installed to exceed code will ensure the whole control system is documented and understood by all parties. Redesigning the HVAC controls and HVAC worksheets to document these values will support the program's quality assurance reviews.
1.3.2 Process Recommendations
The New Construction offering of the CIEE program is operating well. Idaho Power staff have acted on previous recommendations to consolidate CIEE program information, and a couple of the current recommendations are an extension of that strategy. The following process recommendations are provided for Idaho Power's consideration:
Continue to expand in-person outreach and program overview training where possible. Idaho Power has recently begun scheduling face-to-face meetings with architects and engineers after suspending them during the pandemic; our conversations with these firms confirm a real appetite for resuming those meetings. Although they understand why meetings were suspended, several
respondents mentioned interest in getting back to the face-to-face meetings for the interaction they provide with Idaho Power staff and other firms. Small architect firms are particularly interested in training on program requirements and application processes that will make them more efficient.
Consider developing a consolidated contractor list across CIEE programs with substantial overlap. The New Construction Program Engineer conducts numerous outreach activities with architects and engineers. However, firms we spoke with were often unclear on which CIEE program
offering they were utilizing (New Construction, Retrofits, Custom) because it was usually more than one. A consolidated list of active contractors, architects, and engineering firms may help coordinate messaging to market actors, giving them more clarity as they work with customers.
Maintaining a combined outreach list will also provide documentation in the event of staff changes and can assist with further managing outreach and engagement. Tracking could include flags for the type of market actor and latest event-date attendance and record notes on known relationships such as architect and engineer, engineer and subcontractor, etc.
Consider a leave-behind brochure for contractors with all CIEE program offerings. There is substantial overlap in experience across programs among firms we interviewed. Idaho Power already enters contractor and design firm conversations with a CIEE overview and leaves appropriate program-specific information for them, depending on the firm's specialty. However, some of the firms we interviewed were concerned that there were customers they could not help with incentives. An overview

4 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
document may assist design firms with a way to explain program offerings and route customers to one that can benefit them the most.

5 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The New Construction offering of the CIEE program provides incentives for designing and building better-than-code energy-efficient features into new construction, major renovation, addition, expansion, or change-of-space projects. The offering originated in 2004 and currently provides a menu of 33 measures in Idaho and 25 measures in Oregon, including efficient lighting and controls, cooling, ventilation, building shell, controls, appliances, refrigeration, office equipment, and compressed air
projects.
The program offers both customer and Professional Assistance incentives. Customer incentives are calculated based on eligibility criteria and applicable units for each specific measure; Professional
Assistance incentives are available to architects and engineers for up to 20 percent of the participants' total incentive, with a maximum of $5,000 per application.

Idaho Power's New Construction offering manual outlines all the incentives available and the steps to
participate in the program. The Professional Assistance incentive increases the engagement with architects and engineers and is most beneficial to small- and medium-sized businesses that typically do not have staff with a technical background in construction, making it challenging to complete
applications and submit documentation.
Customers complete the Preliminary Application tab of the New Construction application if they are interested in receiving New Construction incentives. Idaho Power reviews each application and works
with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information. Qualification specifications are shared with the design team, and projects are completed. Then customers finish the New Construction application process by submitting all required documentation and emailing it to Idaho Power.
Customer incentives
•Specific to measure type and calculated by square foot, kilowatt-hour saved, cooling capacity, hp, unit, etc.
•Eligibility requirements outlined in New Construction brochure
Professional assistance incentives
•20 percent of total participant incentive
•Maximum of $5,000 per applicant
•Increased from 10 percent and $2,500 maxin September 2020
Assess design for energy efficient opportunities•Discuss energy efficiency options with design team
•Research requirements for incentive qualification
Begin New Construction application
•Download and complete preliminarytab
•Email for Idaho Power review
•Share qualification specifications with design team for the Professional Assistance incentive
Complete project
•Collect specification sheets
•Collect proof-of-performance documentation
Complete New Construction application
•Attach documentation including invoices and proof of payment
•Attach COMcheck if needed
•Attach control strategy summary if needed
•Email for Idaho Power review

6 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Post-project verifications are conducted on 10 percent of completed projects. With COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, no on-site post-project verifications occurred. Instead, all documentation went
through desk reviews. In 2021, on-site verification was completed on 13 percent of projects but found more discrepancies than in previous years.
New Construction offering rolls out a new program format approximately every other year. Each format
updates savings based on current code, conditions, and information captured in the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) at that time. When customers turn in a preliminary application, they are assigned the savings and incentives available under that program format for the project duration. Often
new construction projects have long construction periods and require consistent and dependable incentives. Due to this, savings and incentives may be booked years later. The most recent 2021 format was rolled out on June 15, 2021, and captures the current code, costs, and savings in TRM Version 3. The 2021 format expanded the program offerings with ten new measures or additional offerings and adjusted existing measures to match the new code baseline.
In 2021, the program completed 95 projects with total savings of 17,536 MWh. Most of the savings
were generated using the 2018 version program rules, and only three percent of the savings used the 2021 version program rules. About 15 percent of the savings were attributed to projects using the 2016 program rules version.
Figure 3. C&I New Construction Participants and Savings by Program Year Rules
The program savings in PY2021 was over 90 percent lighting and controls. The categories of HVAC, building controls, and compressed air are the majority of the remaining savings with a limited number of
measures installed in refrigeration, building shell, and appliances with hot water heating. This breakdown of savings is typical for a C&I New Construction program and identifies the risk to program savings as lighting code baselines increase efficiency, reducing lighting savings.
2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
The evaluation activities conducted for New Construction offering projects are summarized in Table 2. Researchable issues are also discussed in this section.
20162,540
20166
201814,595
201879
2021402
202110
Savings(MWh)
Participants
2016 2018 2021

7 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Table 2. PY2021 New Construction Offering Evaluation Activities
Activity Sample size Outcome
Program delivery staff interview 1 Understood the program design and delivery and obtained program staff perspectives on program successes and
challenges. Confirmed the researchable issues.
Program delivery and marketing material review N/A Reviewed the marketing brochures, program manuals, outreach plans, and the program website for messaging and communication benefits.
Tracking system review N/A Reviewed the tracking system to determine if all necessary inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient
information for program review.
Desk reviews 17 Reviewed project documentation and calculations to assess the accuracy of savings claimed for each project. This included review of the energy savings calculations for conformance to the TRM for the version year identified.
Verification on-site visits

7 Completed site visits to verify the installation of measures
and assumptions in savings calculations. Verified that the locations matched projects that had a completed desk
review.
Architect and engineer interviews 9 Collected feedback from builders and design engineers working with the program, which included satisfaction and suggested improvements.
2.2.1 Evaluation Goals
The impact and process evaluation goals below were outlined in the RFP; objectives were addressed through the evaluation activities listed above.
Impact Evaluation
• Review the tracking database to determine and verify the energy (kilowatt-hour) impacts attributable to the 2021 program.
• Complete file reviews and verify engineering calculations with 90/10 (relative error of no more than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence) confidence and precision.
• Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-energy impact estimates and ex-post realization rates for projects finalized in 2021.
• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analyses and the accurate and transparent reporting of program
savings.
• Review the implemented changes in the 2021 version year.
• Verify installation and operating conditions of equipment.
• Review updated project verification standards developed by Idaho Power and the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) in 2022.
Process Evaluation
• Evaluate program design to ensure the use of industry best practices.

8 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
• Evaluate program implementation, including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
• Review program forms, manuals, and marketing materials, and provide recommendations for improvements as needed.
• Evaluate program administration, including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and reporting.
• Understand customer and contractor barriers to participation in the program and provide recommendations to increase participation.
• Investigate how to best integrate the Custom Projects, New Construction, and Retrofits offerings.

9 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 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 four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 4. Each activity is explained in more detail below.
Figure 4. Process for Verifying Program Savings
Review Data and Conduct Sampling
The tracking system and documentation were provided to the evaluation team for review; the tracking data included information from Idaho Power and participants. The participants provided information through the Project Pre-Approval and Payment Applications for the New Construction offering. It included the following:
• account information, including business name and account number, installation address, and contact information;
• a project description;
• estimated project costs and savings;
• project timeline information (dates); and
• payee information, if different from the account holder.
Idaho Power logged this information and stored it in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In addition to the information above, the CLRIS database includes:
• a customer ID;
• the Idaho Power project representative and region;
• customer rate class, building type, and owner occupant status;
• version year and report year;
• pre-application, final application, and inspected dates;
• project type and area;
• participant, architect, and applicable engineer contact information;
• measure description and category type; and
• gross kilowatt and kilowatt-hour savings and incentives per measure.
Review data and conduct sampling Complete desk reviews Conduct site verification Verify kilowatt-hour savings

10 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
The documentation files provided for the New Construction offering showed both application submittal and the verification analysis with a post-installation final project review document. The files Idaho
Power provided included:
• the application,
• engineering analysis and calculations,
• verification report,
• tracking system screenshot of project closeout, and
• a post-installation project description.
In addition to output from CLRIS and documentation files, Idaho Power program staff made the following supporting manuals available to the Tetra Tech team for review:
• New Construction offering tracking database download for program year (PY) 2021;
• Technical Reference Manuals (TRM) Versions 2.2, 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2;
• Non-standard Lighting template;
• New Construction marketing list from 2021;
• C&I EE Programs Policy and Procedures Manual 2021 and 2022; and
• New Construction Handbook 2022.
Sampling was conducted at the project level with the stratum completed based on the program version
year tracked on the project. The stratum was selected to ensure current implementation rules were evaluated as best as possible. The sampling is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. PY2021 New Construction Offering Sampling Summary
Sampling stratum
Total projects
(total quantity) Program kWh savings percentage Sample projects (total quantity) Sample kWh savings percentage
Version year 2021 10 2.29% 6 1.85%
Version years 2018 and 2016 85 97.71% 11 40.39%
Total 95 100.00% 17 42.24%
The objective of the impact evaluation was to meet the precision requirement of 90/10 (relative error of no more than 10 percent with 90 percent confidence). The sample required one project to accomplish this, as the individual project savings was 30 percent of the total program savings. The remainder of the projects were randomly selected within the sampling stratum.
The list of sampled projects was delivered to Idaho Power; individual project files were securely
delivered to the evaluation team by an internet-based file-sharing site that required log-in access. The files delivered included:
• applications and worksheets (administrative copies),
• submitted project documents and emails,
• equipment specifications,
• post-install verification reports, and
• incentive payment verification.

11 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Complete Desk Reviews and Site Verifications
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.
The evaluation team reached out to the participants in the sample to schedule site visits in the first half
of August 2022. Staff completed site visits by interviewing participants and verifying quantities, equipment specifications, and operating parameters.
Verify Kilowatt-Hour Savings
The final step of the impact evaluation combined information from desk reviews and site verifications 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. Desk reviews and site verifications were completed for seven participants, and the remaining ten had only a desk review completed.
3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS
Overall, the evaluation found that the New Construction offering had a realization rate of 102.5 percent with a relative precision of 2.20 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval. The overall and measure-category realization rates of the sample are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. PY2021 Realization Rates for Measure Categories
Measure category Ex-ante kWh Ex-post kWh Realization rate
Lighting 6,692,449 6,882,603 102.8%
HVAC 33,962 25,461 75.0%
Controls 506,110 507,303 100.2%
Compressed air 118,547 118,547 100.0%
Building shell 28,002 28,002 100.0%
Refrigeration 3,024 3,024 100.0%
Appliances 5,561 5,561 100.0%
Total 7,387,655 7,570,501 102.5%
In addition to evaluating the savings claimed, available information, calculation protocols, and the program's quality assurance were reviewed. The Idaho Power New Construction & Major Renovations documentation is clear, and the application workbook is generally sufficient in providing clear direction and communication of project parameters from contractors to Idaho Power. However, on the HVAC Controls Worksheet, the worksheet has check boxes for different HVAC controls under the Energy
Management Control Systems section for each type of HVAC system (see Figure 5 below).

12 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Figure 5: Application Workbook—Controls Worksheet
For a contractor or engineer opening this document at the end of the design, the workbook does not indicate the control system should be above the current code to be selected on the worksheet. Not including this language could result in the selection of all HVAC controls present in the system. Incentives and energy savings for HVAC controls are only eligible when controls are installed on equipment when Idaho's commercial energy code does not require it. Full and partial systems listed can be required by code in various situations. Documenting the installed system and capacity and the code-required systems and capacities in the application would provide transparency and consistency. However, the current practice of ensuring the supporting documentation includes the information meets the basic requirements to ensure program requirements are met.
Following the application, the Idaho Power team reviews the package, opens a dialog with the applicant team to understand the details of the projects, and coordinates potential incentives. Some adjustments happen to the project applications and calculations throughout the project. The Idaho Power
implementation team updated the calculations to ensure accurate energy savings; however, the evaluation team found that the adjustments were not logged or identified in the documentation. The Program Engineer noted that her email contains the justification and decision on adjustments after the
initial application and that information is unavailable in the accessible documentation file. Projects may have long development periods between the initial application and completion; including this documentation in project files could support the staff's ability to recall past decisions on the project.
The post-install verification report contained limited information about the critical items for energy efficiency but focused on the incentive. A post-install verification focusing on the details of the improvement and equipment installed would better support the program implementation. The primary reason for the realization rate exceeding 100 percent was that the old post-install verification report did not provide enough detail to identify an installation quantity deviation from the proposed plan. The program used a new verification report template in PY2022, which met the potential evaluation
recommendation.
The savings calculations were consistent and followed the TRM. Identifying the proper TRM and building code baseline did not always follow the tracking system information but was identified in the submitted documentation. The evaluation team agreed with the process for selecting the proper baseline code and TRM version, but consistent documentation would support clear tracking and calculation review. The baseline code and TRM version adjust for projects based on multiple conditions, so the program reporting year includes many variations of past TRMs and baseline codes. In particular, the previous versions of the TRM were unclear on the expected hours of use for lighting

13 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
and HVAC components. However, edits to the PY2021 TRM already coordinated and simplified the values to address this finding.
The submitted code requirements require careful consideration by the program implementation staff. The components with the most variation are the lighting area determination, space type selection, and the HVAC controls required by the code. These determinations require judgment, and the applicant
team may have a different level of judgment than the program implementation team. Tracking current assumptions in the COMcheck submittals will help the Program Engineer understand variations between submittals and support communication with contractors, architects, and engineers about
current assumption selections.
The evaluation team found that the confirmation of proposed or installed equipment was consistent. Although DLC is not required for some lighting measures if an engineer or architect specified and completed COMcheck, the evaluation team uses third-party verification of lighting fixture wattages such as Design Lights Consortium (DLC) resulting in several adjustments to project energy savings. In addition, the evaluation used the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) efficiency
for HVAC units which also led to small adjustments in energy savings for projects. On one project, the evaluation found that the AHRI-rated efficiency disqualified the unit, significantly impacting the HVAC energy savings.
3.2.1 Lighting
Lighting projects account for approximately 84 percent of the 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample included 13 projects with lighting components, accounting for about 91 percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Five of the sampled projects included at least one other non-lighting project. Table 5 shows realization rates for each project, with the total realization rate for lighting savings claimed at 102.8 percent.
Table 5. PY2021 New Construction Lighting Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
16166 1,114,881 1,227,151 110.1%
18238 3,499 4,734 135.3%
18289 40,016 41,231 103.0%
18311 82,546 84,563 102.4%
18315 16,604 15,136 91.2%
18365 74,313 76,029 102.3%
18458 5,324,012 5,400,102 101.4%
18541 1,391 1,391 100.0%
21006 10,974 5,048 44.5%
21014 3,423 3,593 105.0%
21050 5,197 6,081 117.0%
21051 5,197 5,381 103.5%
21078 10,396 12,163 117.0%
Overall 6,692,449 6,882,603 102.8%

14 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
The lighting energy efficiency calculations were determined by identifying the code allowable lighting power density (LPD) and subtracting the installed lighting wattage. Evaluation adjustments from
savings occurred for three primary reasons:
1. adjustment to the lighting area or space type in the LPD determination,
2. adjustment of the lighting quantity based on the evaluation site visits, and
3. adjustment of lighting fixture wattage based on third-party certification used by the evaluation team.
The most significant risk to future program energy savings accuracy is the adjustments based on
lighting area and space type for the LPD determination. However, the most significant adjustment to the impact evaluation results was the adjustment of the lighting quantity in a large agricultural facility. The Program Engineer has already implemented adjustments to the post-install inspection report template and training for site verifiers to address the evaluation findings in this area.
Adjusting lighting fixtures to match third-party certifications ensures that the energy consumption is tested and verified for the lighting fixtures. In general, most lighting specification sheets are near the
certified wattages, and savings adjustments are minor. However, there are cases where the adjustment can reach ten percent of the lighting savings on individual projects, such as Project ID 18315. The program should balance the implementation workload to determine certified wattages with the potential evaluation risk of not confirming the lighting wattage from the certification source. The evaluation did not recommend utilizing third-party certification for lighting because the conversation is ongoing across several programs implemented by Idaho Power.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each lighting savings adjustment.
Project ID 16166: The project involved installing DLC- and non-DLC-qualified fixtures for a new cold storage facility. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. We found that the number of fixtures within the office area was slightly lower than the quantity claimed. We also noted wattage adjustments for seven interior and four exterior fixtures. As a result, the energy savings slightly
increased with a realization rate for lighting savings of 110 percent.
Project ID 18238: A customer installed new DLC-qualified LED lighting troffers for a remodel. We found that the space-by-space method LPD baseline values were used rather than the building area
method LPD baseline values which matched the area measured. We adjusted the baseline lighting power density (LPD) to match the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) value for retail using the building area method, resulting in a significant energy savings increase. The
realization rate is 135 percent.
Project ID 18289: A customer building was built with DLC and ENERGY STAR-qualified fixtures. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. We found a slight increase in fixture quantity in the data
room. We also noted a wattage adjustment for nine different interior fixtures. These changes led to a slight increase in energy savings. The resulting realization rate for lighting savings is 103 percent.
Project ID 18311: A school was built with interior and exterior LED fixtures. Some of these fixtures were both non-DLC and non-ENERGY STAR-qualified. The interior lighting LPD was adjusted from 0.78 to 0.87 to match the value in IECC 2015 for a school/university. An on-site visit was conducted for this location. Fixture quantities were slightly increased based on the site visit. We also noted wattage adjustments for 19 fixtures, added a 1,100-foot exterior walkway to the calculation, and decreased the parking area. The resulting realization rate for lighting savings is 102 percent.

15 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Project ID 18315: The project involved installing DLC-qualified interior LED fixtures in a significant renovation of a manufacturing facility. We made a significant wattage adjustment for the primary
high bay fixtures, adjusting the fixture wattage from 128 W to 137 W based on the DLC-qualified listing for the product. Adjustments were also made for the smaller fixtures, changing one from 104 W to 107 W and the second from 26 W to 39 W. Overall, this increased the installed LPD and
reduced energy savings. In addition, the hallway LPD was adjusted to match the IECC 2015 LPD for the space-by-space method. The resulting realization rate for lighting is 91 percent.
Project ID 18365: This new project included LED fixtures. Some of the fixtures were not DLC- or
ENERGY STAR-qualified. Three of the exterior fixtures had their wattages adjusted based on specification sheets. Sensors were found to be eligible based on IECC 2015 code. The resulting realization rate for interior and exterior lighting is 102 percent.
Project ID 18458: This project involved installing DLC-qualified fixtures in a large unconditioned agricultural facility. The evaluation site visit identified 932 fixtures, reduced from 980 in the documentation. We also verified that the lighting was on at all hours and the building was exposed
to exterior conditions; therefore, the interactive effects and coincidence factors were applied correctly. The resulting realization rate for lighting is 101 percent.
Project ID 18541: The project included the installation of DLC-qualified fixtures for a new manufacturing facility. We found no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 21006: A new building was built with interior and exterior LED lighting. During the desk review and on-site verification visit, we subtracted approximately 500 linear feet of sidewalk in the public right-of-way and incorporated the lengths of the on-site walkways. The adjusted walkway area reduced the baseline LPD allowances, which reduced the exterior lighting savings to zero. Overall, the resulting realization rate is 44 percent.
Project ID 21014: A major renovation to an office included new LED fixtures. During the evaluation,
one LPD value for storage was adjusted based on the IECC 2015 (space-by-space method) value. The installed lighting wattage was also lowered based on a review of the installed fixtures. The combination of adjustments lowered the savings below the HVAC component of the project;
therefore, the stacking effect further lowered the lighting savings. The coordinating HVAC impact increased energy savings. The resulting lighting realization rate is 105 percent.
Project ID 21050: The project consisted of the installation of DLC- and non-DLC-qualified interior
fixtures for an agricultural building. The evaluation identified that the baseline lighting code selected in COMcheck was incorrect; therefore, the LPDs were adjusted to match the IECC 2015 code. A slight wattage adjustment for two fixtures was also identified. The resulting realization rate for this project is 117 percent.
Project ID 21051: The project consisted of DLC- and non-DLC-qualified interior and exterior fixtures for an agricultural building. The evaluation identified that the baseline lighting code selected in COMcheck was incorrect; therefore, the LPDs were adjusted to match the IECC 2015 code. Our verification site visit found that one of the high bay fixtures was missing and identified a slight wattage adjustment for two fixtures. The combination of the adjustments resulted in a 104 percent realization rate for lighting.
Project ID 21078: The project consisted of installing DLC- and non-DLC-qualified interior fixtures for an agricultural building. We identified that the baseline lighting code selected in COMcheck was incorrect; therefore, the LPDs were adjusted to match the IECC 2015 code. The resulting realization rate is 117 percent.

16 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
3.2.1.1 Looking Forward—Lighting
The evaluation tested the 2021 version year lighting projects to determine the impact of updating these projects immediately to IECC 2018 from IECC 2015. The IECC 2018 increases the baseline lighting efficiency, which reduces the allowable lighting wattage in the New Construction offering lighting calculations. The test found that the lighting savings decreased by approximately 20 percent.
As projects are designed to IECC 2018 code, the program can expect a reduction in lighting savings claimed per project. Since the claimed projects will continue to have a mixture of baseline code in the designs and calculations, this reduction will not immediately be apparent in the program savings but will
be noticeable at the project level, depending on the baseline code.
3.2.2 HVAC
HVAC projects account for about five percent of the 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample included five projects, which accounted for less than one percent of the total sampled energy savings. Table 6 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 43.3 percent.
Table 6. PY2021 New Construction Air-Conditioning Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
16166 4,062 4,062 100.0%
18311 25,872 18,060 69.8%
18315 650 0 0.0%
18365 774 773 100.0%
21014 2,604 2,566 101.5%
Overall 33,962 25,461 75.0%
The HVAC category has two major adjustments, although because of the relative size of the savings to the whole program, the impact on the program was not as high. Each adjustment occurred for unique reasons; for one project, the HVAC units in the program's post-install verification could not be verified, and the evaluation removed the saving from the two small units from the project. The second project had an adjustment to the efficiency rating (SEER) of the installed units, adjustment of hours of use.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each HVAC project savings adjustment.
Project ID 16166: The project consisted of installing nine heat pumps at 5 tons or less and five split
systems at 3 tons or less at a new cold storage facility. A site visit was completed for this project, and no discrepancies were found between the tracking system data, documentation, and site visit results. The realization rate for HVAC is 100 percent.

17 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Project ID 18311: The project included the installation of 38 packaged systems at 5 tons or less, two packaged systems over 5 tons, four split systems below 5 tons, and economizers controlling over
190 cooling tons for an education facility. The SEER value for the 4YCZ6036 (3-ton) units was adjusted from 16.0 to 16.6; the SEER value for 4YCZ6060 (5-ton) units was adjusted from 16.0 to 15.1. The SEER of 15.1 does not qualify for incentives, and the 5-ton unit savings were reduced.
The primary adjustment to energy savings was the reduction in cooling hours for the HVAC units for an education-primary school facility. The hours were adjusted from 700 to 203 based on Table 2-104 in TRM Volume 2.2. The savings calculation was adjusted to match the TRM by the evaluation
team, although the Program Specialist acknowledged that alternate hours were used for this TRM version. In addition, the evaluation team removed an undocumented scaling factor included in the calculation spreadsheet.
A second component of the savings was the airside economizer measure. The evaluation found the energy savings is acceptable, although several questions about the applicability of the code to the situation required conversations to determine. The combined adjustments resulted in a 75.0 percent
realization rate for the HVAC.
Project ID 18315: The HVAC portion of this project consisted of two split-system units at a remodeled manufacturing facility. The post-install verification report noted that the split systems were not located during the site visit. Our evaluation site visit could not be scheduled; the units were not verified as installed, and therefore, the evaluation removed their savings from the project. The HVAC savings were less than five percent of the total New Construction project claimed savings. The realization rate for the HVAC component measures is zero percent.
Project ID 18365: The project consisted of a two-ton split system for a new hospital. We found no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation, but we were unable to confirm the model through the invoice. The resulting realization rate for this measure is 100 percent.
Project ID 21014: The project consisted of a one-ton air-cooled heat pump and six water-cooled heat
pumps for a remodeled office building. We found a slight cooling capacity adjustment for one water-cooled heat pump. The resulting realization rate is 101.5 percent for the HVAC component.
3.2.3 Controls
Controls projects account for eight percent of the 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample
included six projects which accounted for seven percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 7 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is slightly over 100 percent.
Table 7. PY2021 New Construction Controls Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
18311 102,494 103,687 101.2%
18365 45,716 45,716 100.0%
18477 71,580 71,580 100.0%
21003 143,160 143,160 100.0%
21050 71,580 71,580 100.0%
21051 71,580 71,580 100.0%
Overall 506,110 507,303 100.2%

18 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
The controls project in the sample were primarily variable frequency drives (VFD) installed on fans. We found no adjustments for these projects. However, the remaining project used multiple control
strategies for an HVAC system coupled with a kitchen demand-controlled ventilation system. There were minimal adjustments to the project controls.
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings for each Controls savings adjustment.
Project ID 18311: The project included installing an energy management system with three control strategies, a kitchen hood exhaust, and a VFD fan for a new school. An on-site visit was conducted for this location, although the strategies could not be verified by the site contact, and a reach-out to
the remote-controls contact was not answered. The evaluation team found that the installed control system creates efficiencies above the code-required control system.
The supply air temperature reset received an exemption because of the HVAC design and therefore was not required by code and remained a control strategy. The supply air temperature reset strategy was confirmed eligible based on the IECC 2015 exemption that did not require installation because of the limited mixing of HVAC air in the design. The demand control ventilation (DCV)
strategy was confirmed eligible based on the IECC 2015 exemption that allows for facilities with 25 or fewer people per 1,000 square feet of space to operate without the controls required by code. For the kitchen hood VFD exhaust, it was found to have no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The resulting realization rate from removing one control strategy is 101 percent.
Project ID 18365: This project consisted of nine 6 hp supply air fans installed with VFDs for a new hospital. There were no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 18477: This project included the installation of 60 hp of VFD fans for a new agricultural facility. There were no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 21003: This project included the installation of 120 hp of VFD fans for a new agricultural facility. There were no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 21050: This project included the installation of 60 hp of VFD fans for a new agricultural facility. There were no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 21051: This project included the installation of 60 hp of VFD fans for a new agricultural facility. There were no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.

19 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
3.2.4 Compressed Air
Compressed air projects account for about two percent of the total 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample included two projects which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled
kilowatt-hours. Table 8 shows the realization rate for each project.
Table 8. PY2021 New Construction Compressed Air Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
18390 20,536 20,535.5 100.0%
18411 98,011 98,011 100.0%
Overall 118,547 118,546.5 100.0%
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings; no adjustments were made for the compressed
air measures.
Project ID 18390: A manufacturing plant expanded operations with a new 20 hp air compressor with a VFD, and zero-loss condensate drains. No discrepancies were found between the tracking system
data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
Project ID 18411: A new manufacturing plant was built with a 100 hp air compressor with a VFD, and zero-loss condensate drains. No discrepancies were found between the tracking system data and
documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
3.2.5 Building Shell
Building shell projects account for less than one percent of total 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample included two projects which accounted for less than one percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 9 shows the realization rate for each project.
Table 9. PY2021 New Construction Building Shell Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
16166 26,648 26,648.45 100.0%
18365 1,354 1,353.882 100.0%
Overall 28,002 28,002.33 100.0%
The descriptions below detail the evaluation findings; no adjustments were made for the building shell measures.
Project ID 16166: This project consists of the installation of a reflective roof for a new cold storage facility. No discrepancies were found between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate for this measure is 100 percent.
Project ID 18365: This project consists of the installation of a reflective roof for a new hospital. No discrepancies were found between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate for this measure is 100 percent.

20 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
3.2.6 Refrigeration
Refrigeration projects account for less than one percent of total 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample included one project, accounting for less than one percent of the sampled
kilowatt-hours. Table 10 shows the realization rate for the project.
Table 10. PY2021 New Construction Refrigeration Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
18365 3,024 3,024 100.0%
The description below details the evaluation findings. We made no adjustments to the Refrigeration measures.
Project ID 18365: This project includes the installation of strip curtains for a walk-in cooler in a new hospital. We found no discrepancies between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.
3.2.7 Appliances with Electric Water Heating
Appliances projects for less than one percent of total 2021 New Construction offering savings. The sample included one project, accounting for less than one percent of the sampled kilowatt-hours. Table 11 shows the realization rate for the project.
Table 11. PY2021 New Construction Appliances Impact Results Summary
Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization rate
18365 5,561 5,561 100.0%
The description below details the evaluation findings. No adjustments were made to the appliance measures.
Project ID 18365: This project includes the installation of an ENERGY STAR commercial dishwasher in a new hospital. No discrepancies were found between the tracking system data and documentation. The realization rate is 100 percent.

21 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
3.3 REVIEW OF PY2018 IMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the impact evaluation, Tetra Tech reviewed Idaho Power's progress against the recommendations made during the last impact evaluation of the 2018 program. The table below
highlights Idaho Power's actions to address the previous impact recommendations.
Table 12. PY2018 CIEE New Construction Program Recommendations Review
Category Key finding and recommendation PY2021 implementation Status
Calculations Utilize hours of use from the TRM for lighting and HVAC projects that started after the TRM was implemented.
Idaho Power updated TRM 3.0 to simplify and coordinate HVAC hours of use. However, the projects claimed in PY2021 are generally using previous versions and therefore are
not using the updated hours of use.
The lighting hours of use are custom-entered for interior lighting and TRM-based for exterior lighting.
In progress
Tracking system Tracking data should include the version of the TRM utilized for each project.
The tracking data includes an identification of the TRM version in use for calculating the claimed
savings.
Complete

22 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 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 three primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 6. Each activity is explained below.
Figure 6. Process Evaluation Activities

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.
Materials and Outreach Review
Tetra Tech read the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Policies and Procedures
Manual dated January 2021. The program logic model developed in 2018 was also reviewed for the entire Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency (CIEE) program at the time, including Retrofits, New Construction, and Custom Projects offerings.
Tetra Tech explored the Idaho Power website for energy efficiency information for businesses and any
linked documentation, including applications and instructions. Idaho Power staff also provided an overarching CIEE slide deck and general CIEE brochure to facilitate discussions with customers and contractors regarding all of the CIEE offerings from Idaho Power. A program-specific New Construction
brochure was also reviewed, which details the incentives and requirements for the New Construction program.
Contractor Interviews
C&I customers work with architects and engineers to design energy-efficient buildings that qualify for Idaho Power New Construction offering incentives. The Program Engineer provided a list of firms and contacts associated with projects in 2021. Tetra Tech sampled 30 companies; all architects and
engineers with email addresses were emailed and followed up with via telephone to complete interviews with nine firms that could provide feedback on the New Construction offering incentives.
4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS
Idaho Power follows program management best practices with a program manual and logic model developed for the CIEE suite of programs. Communication between Idaho Power, architects, and engineers is working well, and engineers find the application process straightforward and easy to complete for their customers.
Program staff interview Materials and outreach review Contractor interviews

23 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
4.2.1 Materials and Outreach Review
Policies and Procedures Manual
Tetra Tech reviewed 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 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 CIEE offerings from Idaho Power. In addition, it offers sufficient detail for each major offering (Custom Projects, 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 Idaho Power 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
Logic Model
Our review of the CIEE logic model, developed in 2018 in response to a previous evaluation
recommendation, shows that the New Construction offering closely follows the program design and delivery steps laid out in the logic model. The major steps—(1) Idaho Power outreach, (2) customer submission of preliminary application, (3) customer implementation, and (4) customer submission of 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 New Construction offering are being realized.

24 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Outreach
Idaho Power continues to market the New Construction offering in conjunction with all CIEE offerings.
Methods such as bill inserts, newsletters, airport advertising, radio, and social media messages communicate the benefits businesses can realize through Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs.
In addition, there were a few outreach options specific to New Construction:
• The summer newsletter issue, sent to 13,971 customers in June 2021, focused on incentive changes for Retrofit and New Construction offerings. It also included a Simplot success story and promotion of the GMI.
• Idaho Power sponsored the virtual BOMA Commercial Real Estate Symposium on February 18, 2021. During the event, Idaho Power shared a video from the New Construction Senior Engineer that included the Idaho Humane Society success-story video. The company also developed slides with key company facts that rotated on the screen before the event, placed LEDs and a brochure in the event giveaway box that was available for pickup, and placed an ad and article in the event program. In March, the company also participated in BOMA's virtual Thursday Conversations video blog.
• Idaho Power representatives conducted conversations via telephone and email with architectural and engineering firms in Boise; in-person visits were not allowed in 2021 due to
COVID-19 restrictions. The conversations helped build relationships with the local design community.
The Idaho Power website was explored for energy efficiency information for businesses and any linked
documentation, including applications and instructions. The selection of state and then New Construction information was easy to follow.
Since most of the initial marketing and outreach are done as an overarching CIEE program, Idaho
Power staff provided the overarching CIEE slide deck and general CIEE brochure that staff use to facilitate discussions with customers and contractors regarding all the CIEE offerings from Idaho Power. A program-specific New Construction offering brochure was also reviewed, which details the incentives and requirements for the New Construction offering of the CIEE program.
All slides and brochures are visually appealing and provide good information on what is offered through the CIEE program. The New Construction offering brochure provides the specific information needed for customers or design firms interested in applying for New Construction offering incentives.
4.2.2 Contractor Interviews
A mix of thirty architecture and engineering firms were contacted from a list provided by Idaho Power; interviews were completed with nine firms in August 2022. Five of our discussions were with architects, and four were with engineering firms; all provide design services for C&I customers with little residential work.
The firms we spoke with have all been working with Idaho Power programs for several years. At least five of the firms also completed projects that qualified for another Idaho Power CIEE program, such as Retrofit or Custom Projects.

25 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Communication
Both architects and engineers reported having a good relationship or support from Idaho Power staff.
Emailed information has been sufficient for most firms to remain updated on program requirements. Two of the firms mentioned direct contact with the Program Engineer if they have questions, and one thought the presentation they attended was helpful. Two of the smaller architecture firms would like
more in-person contact with Idaho Power staff to better understand the New Construction offering.
How firms handle discussions with customers about energy-efficient projects varies by firm. Two of the architecture firms leave the responsibility for the discussion to the engineers; one of the architects talks
to their customers early in the design about energy efficiency; one large firm is working to increase awareness among their internal staff of Idaho Power offerings to better serve their customers. However, as Idaho Power is aware, a common barrier to many discussions is customer preference for aesthetics over mechanical efficiency.
Architecture and design firms that help customers meet the New Construction offering incentive requirements are eligible for a Professional Assistance incentive. Two of the firms we spoke with were
not aware of the incentive; four firms were aware of the incentive, with two using it heavily and two others that were happy with it but did not find it critical to encouraging customers to build above code. One respondent mentioned the recent increase in the incentive and said that it was providing additional motivation for their internal staff to work with customers on eligible designs.
Applications
Projects incentivized through the New Construction offering are required to fill out a preliminary application that is reviewed by Idaho Power or IDL. At that point, the customer is assisted with any preliminary calculations and is assigned a project number. Opportunities that qualify for Custom Projects are identified for the customer. Once a project is completed, a final application is submitted.
At least seven of the firms we spoke with complete applications for customers, although two of the architects do so through the engineers working with them. Six of the respondents volunteered how easy
the process is to complete applications for Idaho Power. Although the process is easy, it does take a certain amount of time. A couple of the firms are grateful for the Professional Assistance incentive for that reason.

“It is easy, we plug in the information.
It is nice and straightforward.”

In most cases, the program incentive is paid to the customer. Only in a few instances will the customer request the incentive be paid to the architect or engineer.

26 Idaho Power CIEE New Construction – 2021 Evaluation Results. November 8, 2022
Satisfaction
Overall, architecture and engineering firms are satisfied with the New Construction offering; they feel it
provides good service and support, benefitting the C&I customers they serve. Just one respondent provided a neutral response, mostly due to a lack of interaction with the program.
Four of the respondents we spoke with were familiar with the meetings and training provided by Idaho
Power and IDL; they found those meetings to be useful and a good source of information and interaction. Three firms were not aware of meetings or training. All the firms felt it would be good to continue meetings to discuss program requirements and get new, small firms up to speed.
The firms we spoke with had few suggestions for improving the New Construction offering. One mentioned improving options for enrolling in major rehabilitation projects and opportunities for office buildings. Another suggested an easy-to-read guide for the customer that the architects or engineers could present early in their customer discussions.
COVID-19
At least three of the firms we spoke with thought they were busier during COVID-19 than before the
pandemic; however, at least six firms mentioned supply chain delays and complications with project scheduling. One said the pandemic created more flexibility in how they do business. Interestingly, two firms have noticed changes in customer requests, including better filtration and airflow and more touchless technology and sensors.
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 447
OTHER REPORTS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2022 A/C Cool Credit Program End-of-
Season Report
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
2022 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season
Annual Report
Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
Report
Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Historical DSM Expense and Performance,
2002–2022
Residential,
Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation
Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program—
School Year 2021–2022 Annual Report
Residential Tinker LLC Tinker LLC Other
Home Energy Reports Summary Residential Harris Utility
Consumer
Analytics
Harris Utility
Consumer
Analytics
Other
Idaho Power Company Demand Response
Potential Assessment Report (online)
Residential,
Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation
AEG AEG Other
Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency
Potential Study (online)*
Residential,
Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation
AEG AEG Other
* Titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports.
Supplement 2: Evaluation
Page 448 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report

1

A/C Cool Credit - 2022 Results
Table of Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Baseline Usage Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 3
Non-Contributing Households ................................................................................................................... 4
Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Charts ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Summary
This report presents an analysis of the demand response events called by Idaho Power’s A/C
Cool Credit program during the summer of 2022. The program called a total of 13 demand
response events that included 19,127 households. The peak realized reduction at the generator
level during this period occurred on July 29th, with a reduction of 1.05 kW per participant and a
total system curtailment of 20.1 MW. In comparison, the maximum potential reduction for the
season is estimated to be 26.8 MW, based on a generator level reduction of 1.4 kW per
participant at a cycling rate of 65%.

Table 1. Season Summary Results
Region

Participant
Count
Peak Realized
Curtailment
Peak Potential
Curtailment
Idaho 18,910 19.9 MW 26.5 MW
Oregon 217 0.2 MW 0.3 MW
Total 19,127 20.1 MW 26.8 MW

2

Program Overview
The A/C Cool Credit program underwent several operational changes in 2022. Most notably, the
end of the cycling season was extended by one month, from August 15th to September 15th.
This program change allowed the program to operate on multiple high-temperature days in
early September that previously would have been ineligible for demand response. Figure 1
provides an overview of important dates in the 2022 cycling season.
Program event guidelines allow for event duration of up to four hours. However, events in the
last several years of the program have generally lasted only three hours. In 2022, the program
began incorporating longer event spans: eight out of the 13 events called this season spanned
four hours.
Additionally, Idaho Power enacted a more flexible approach to event cycling rates. In 2020, all
events were cycled at 50%, meaning participating A/C units were switched off for
approximately 30 minutes out of an hour. In 2021, the cycling rate was set at 55%. This season,
the cycling rate was dynamically selected based on the circumstances of each demand response
event. Five of the events in 2022 were cycled at 55%, with the other eight cycled at 50%.
Overall, the changes made to the program in 2022 have significantly improved its potential
effectiveness for Idaho Power. The extension of the cycling season and incorporation of longer
event spans have allowed the program to respond to a wider range of high-temperature days
and better meet system needs. The more flexible approach to cycling rates has also given the
program greater control over the size and timing of demand reductions, ensuring that it can
effectively reduce energy demand while still maintaining participant comfort. These operational
changes make the program a more reliable and effective tool for managing energy demand and
helping to reduce strain on the power grid.

Figure 1. 2022 Season Dates
3

Methodology
Idaho Power continues to calculate A/C Cool Credit program savings using the evaluation
methodology created by ADM Associates as part of the 2021 impact evaluation. This
methodology models demand reductions by using a variety of statistical methods to determine
each participant’s hypothetical usage as if there had not been a demand response event that
day. Additionally, the methodology evaluates the number of households who did not contribute
a statistically significant demand reduction to each event. This section provides an overview of
the model steps; a more detailed discussion can be found in ADM’s 2021 program impact
evaluation in Supplement 2 of Idaho Power’s 2021 Demand-Side Management Annual Report.
Baseline Usage Calculation
To model participant energy usage at the household level, the evaluation methodology requires
four primary data inputs: a list of participating demand response switches, hourly meter reads
for all participants for the cycling season, hourly weather reads for the service territory, and the
date and time of all demand response events. By integrating these inputs, the methodology
takes into account the unique energy usage patterns of each household.
Since each household is unique and may exhibit vastly different energy usage patterns, there is
no single statistical model that will perfectly fit every participant. Instead, the methodology
tests five possible models to find the best fit for each household. These models fall into two
categories:
1. A weather-adjusted Linear Fixed Effect Regression (LFER) model. This is a regression
model that controls for variables including Cooling Degree Days, Heating Degree Days,
and hour of the day, and treats each household as an individual fixed effect.
2. A Customer Baseline (CBL) model tuned with various eligibility periods and offset
methods. The possible eligibility periods are 3-of-5 and 3-of-10, the latter of which
would mean that the model looks at the three highest usage days of the last 10 eligible
days. The offset factor determines how the model scales usage based on usage prior to
the event start. The possible methods are additive and multiplicative.
Model performance was assessed based on how well the model predicted the household’s
energy consumption across four proxy days. These days were chosen because they were the
hottest days of the season that were not affected by any events. The data used to train the
household models did not include energy usage during these proxy days or event days.
In both 2021 and 2022, the LFER model was the best fit for the largest number of participants.
The final reported savings are derived from a mixed model, which incorporates household level
results based on the best fit of the five models for each participant. This approach ensures that
baseline estimates are robust to variance in household behavior.
4

Non-Contributing Households
A separate calculation within the model provides an estimate of Non-Contributing Households
(NCH), or the number of households during each event that did not produce a statistically
noticeable demand reduction. This is an important metric for understanding overall impacts of
demand response efforts and for identifying characteristics of event days and households that
may prompt non-responsiveness. Importantly, NCH is calculated for informational purposes and
is ultimately independent of overall savings results, which include all program participants
whether responsive or not.
In some cases, a statistically non-responsive household may indicate a communication, switch,
or A/C unit failure, however there are a number of other likely factors to consider. For example,
occupants may be away during an event or have temporarily changed the household’s
temperature set point. On event days with cooler weather or lower cycling rates it is harder for
the model to confidently identify a demand reduction, as a result the NCH rate tends to be
higher.
The model utilizes a three step calculation process to identify NCHs:
1. The first calculation is a Cumulative Sum (CSUM) analysis, which is a technique that
evaluates the slope of a smoothed curve of energy usage data for the hours before and
during the event, and comparing the ratios of these slopes to determine if there is a
significant change in demand due to the event. Devices with a slope ratio less than one
are considered contributing devices.
2. The second calculation is the linear decrease analysis, which involves comparing the
consumption for the hour prior to the event to the consumption during the first hour of
the event. Devices that do not see a 10% reduction in this step are considered non-
contributing devices.
3. Finally, the model performs a check for signs of a snapback effect, which is the increase
above baseline usage that frequently occurs at the conclusion of a demand response
event as an A/C unit works to return to the household to normal set temperature.
Households that were labeled as non-contributing by the first two tests but show signs
of a snapback effect are reclassified as contributing households.

Results
The following tables and charts display the outputs of the evaluation models. All demand
reduction numbers presented in the text and figures of this report are calculated at the
generator level which includes an overall system loss number of 9.7%.
For simplicity, only Treasure Valley temperature data is shown in the charts below. However,
the underlying baseline evaluation model utilizes weather reads from both the Treasure Valley
region and the Twin Falls/Pocatello region.
5

Tables

Table 2. 2022 Event Details
Event
Date
Event
Time
Peak
Temperature
Cycle
Rate
Average
Reduction
Total
Reduction
Jul 7 6-9 p.m. 94°F 55% 0.6 kW 11.4 MW
Jul 27 4-8 p.m. 101°F 50% 0.87 kW 16.7 MW
Jul 28 4-8 p.m. 103°F 50% 0.94 kW 18.1 MW
Jul 29 4-8 p.m. 104°F 50% 1.05 kW 20.1 MW
Aug 1 6-9 p.m. 102°F 55% 0.98 kW 18.7 MW
Aug 8 5-8 p.m. 102°F 55% 0.86 kW 16.4 MW
Aug 9 5-8 p.m. 98°F 55% 0.88 kW 16.8 MW
Aug 17 6-10 p.m. 102°F 50% 0.76 kW 14.5 MW
Aug 31 6-10 p.m. 105°F 50% 0.78 kW 14.9 MW
Sep 1 5-8 p.m. 97°F 55% 0.82 kW 15.7 MW
Sep 2 5-9 p.m. 100°F 50% 0.81 kW 15.5 MW
Sep 6 5-9 p.m. 100°F 50% 0.68 kW 12.9 MW
Sep 7 5-9 p.m. 104°F 50% 0.9 kW 17.1 MW

6

Table 3. 2022 Household Non-Contribution Results
Event
Date
Non-Contribution
Ratio
Jul 7 20.5%
Jul 27 18.4%
Jul 28 16.3%
Jul 29 16.2%
Aug 1 8.7%
Aug 8 17%
Aug 9 15.5%
Aug 17 15.9%
Aug 31 15.2%
Sep 1 20.6%
Sep 2 31.4%
Sep 6 29.8%
Sep 7 20.6%
7

Charts

Figure 2. Household Results by Event
8

Figure 3. Household Proxy Day Performance

March 8, 2023

2022 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 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................................... 7
Program Costs ......................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Idaho Power
Page ii Flex Peak Program Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2022 Incentive Structure ................................................................................................... 3
Table 2. Realization rate per event - 2022 ...................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Realization Rate Per Participant for Each Event - 2022 .................................................. 10
Table 4. Annual Program Costs – 2022 ......................................................................................... 12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Idaho Power’s Service Area ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 2. 2022 Enrolled Capacity (% of Total Nomination) by Region ........................................... 5
Figure 3. 2022 Enrolled Capacity (Total Nomination) by Business Type ....................................... 6
Figure 4. Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW) .................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Average and Maximum Reduction Achieved per Event ................................................. 8
Figure 6. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class .............................................. 9

Idaho Power Company
2022 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. 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 for new supply-side resources.
The results presented in this report are from the 2022 program season, the company’s eighth
year of operating the program internally. The 2022 program season had a decrease in load
reduction and realization rates from the prior year (2021). There were 25 new sites added, and
overall participation resulted in the highest hourly load reduction for the season of 24.5
megawatts (MW). The average realization rate for the seven load reduction events that
occurred in the 2022 program season was 63%. Enrollment increased slightly in 2022, and 96%
of previously participating sites re-enrolled in the program. The maximum available capacity of
the program came from the nominated amount in week three of 30 MW. The total program
costs through December 31, 2022, were $519,618.
BACKGROUND
In 2015, the company requested approval to implement the Flex Peak Program as an Idaho
Power operated program. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approved the
company’s request in Order No. 33292,1 and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC)
accepted the proposal from Advice No. 15-03.2 Prior to 2015, a similar DR program for
commercial and industrial customers was operated by a third-party vendor.
As part of Advice No. 15-03, the OPUC adopted Staff’s recommendation that the company file
an annual end-of-season report with information regarding the program. The company was also
directed by the IPUC in Order No. 33292 to file an annual end-of-season report detailing the
results of the program. In compliance with the reporting requirements, the annual end-of-
season report includes the following:
• Number of participating customers
• Number of participating sites
• MW of demand response under contract

1 In the Matter of Idaho Power’s Company’s Application for Approval of New Tariff Schedule 82, A
Commercial and Industrial Demand-Response Program (Flex Peak Program), Case No. IPC-E-15-03,
Order No. 33292 (May 7, 2015).
2 Schedule 76, Flex Peak Program, Docket No. ADV 7/Advice No. 15-03 (approved April 28, 2015).
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 2022 Flex Peak Program Report
• MW of demand response realized and incented per dispatch
• Percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by participant
• Cost analysis of the program
• Number of events called
• Total load dropped for each event
• Event duration
• Total capacity payments made
• Total energy payments made
• Number of customers who failed to meet their load
• Number of program applications denied due to program subscription limit
• 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 September 15, between the hours of 3 p.m. and 10 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 to participate.
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 and Labor Day) between the hours of 3
p.m. and 10 p.m. and last between two to four hours
• Events can occur up to four hours per day and up to 16 hours per week, but no more
than 60 hours per program season
• Idaho Power will provide notification to participants four 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

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
2022 Flex Peak Program Report Page 3
Program Incentives
The program includes both a fixed and variable incentive payment. The fixed incentive is
calculated by multiplying the actual kW reduction by $3.25 for weeks when an event is called or
the weekly nominated kW amount by $3.25 for weeks when an event is not called. The variable
energy incentive is calculated by multiplying the kW reduction by the event duration hours to
achieve the total kilowatt-hour (kWh) reduction during an event. The variable incentive
payment is $0.20 per kWh and is implemented for events that occur after the first four events.
The program also includes an incentive adjustment of $2.00 per kW not achieved for each
event hour when participants do not achieve their nominated amount during load reduction
events, which is subtracted from their credit or payment. Incentives are calculated using Idaho
Power’s interval metering billing data; 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
2022 season is listed in Table 1.
Table 1. 2022 Incentive Structure
Fixed-Capacity Payment Rate* Variable Energy Payment Rate**
$3.25 per Weekly Effective kW Reduction

Adjustment (subtracted from payment)
$2.00 per kW of nomination not achieved for
each hour of the event
$0.20 per kWh (Actual kW reduction x Hours of Event)

*To be prorated for partial weeks
**Does not apply to first four program events
PROGRAM RESULTS
The results presented throughout this report are at the generation level and system losses have
been considered. Idaho Power called seven load reduction events in 2022: two events in July,
three events in August, and two events in September. The maximum realization rate achieved
during the season was 86% during the event on July 28 and the average for all seven events
combined was 63%. The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction achieved versus the
amount of load reduction committed for an event. The highest hourly load reduction achieved
was during the July 28th event at 24.5 MW.
Participants had a committed load reduction of 29.5 MW in the first week of the program
season and ended with 27.2 MW at the end of the season. This was a decrease from the 2021
season as participants had a committed load reduction of 36 MW in the first week of the 2021
season and ended with 29.7 MW. This weekly commitment, or “nomination,” was comprised of
customers participating in the program totaling 159 sites as compared to 139 sites in 2021. The
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2022 Flex Peak Program Report
maximum available capacity of the program came from a nominated amount in week three at
30 MW. In past years, certain events have achieved higher than a 100% realization rate which
would make this the maximum potential available capacity for the program.
Enrollment specific to the Oregon service area included 6 participants totaling 9 sites enrolled.
These 9 sites had an average nominated capacity for the season of 4.8 MW and achieved a
maximum reduction during the season of 5.6 MW during hour four on the August 8 event.
Participation
The number of sites enrolled in the program for 2022 was 159 from 69 participants. The
average number of sites enrolled per participating customer was 2.3. A total of 134 of the 139
sites that participated in 2021 re-enrolled in the program in 2022. The four customers (five
sites) that did not re-enroll made the decision that demand reduction was not in line with their
facilities’ needs for 2022. There was one customer that terminated their participation early in
the 2022 season due to extensive electrical upgrades which kept them from curtailing usage
when events were called.
This past season Idaho Power continued the auto-enrollment option where existing participants
were re-enrolled in the program automatically: a confirmation packet was mailed early in April
based on the prior year’s enrollment information. Participants notified the company in writing
to disenroll, to change their nomination amount, or to 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.
The 2022 season was the first year with the new program parameters per Idaho Case IPC-E-21-
32 and Oregon Docket No. ADV 1355/Advice No. 21-12, which replaced the 13-14 Settlement
agreement.
The company did deny one program application in 2022, as the applicant was not able to meet
the 20 kW minimum load reduction.
Figure 1 represents Idaho Power’s service area divided into three regional areas: Canyon-West
(Canyon and Western), Capital, and South-East (Southern and Eastern). Figure 2 represents the
enrolled capacity (total nominations) that were enrolled in 2022 and the distribution by Idaho
Power’s regional service areas. Figure 3 represents the enrolled capacity in 2022 and the
diversity based on business type.
Idaho Power Company
2022 Flex Peak Program Report Page 5

Figure 1. Idaho Power’s Service Area

Figure 2. 2022 Enrolled Capacity (% of Total Nomination) by Region

Canyon-
West
34%
Capital
29%
South-
Eastern
37%
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 2022 Flex Peak Program Report

Figure 3. 2022 Enrolled Capacity (Total Nomination) by Business Type
Operations
After an event, interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view a history of each
participant’s load before, during, and after events. The metering data was used to calculate the
reduction achieved per site for each event, allowing Idaho Power to provide participants with a
report that showed their hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction for each event. This data
can assist participants in refining their nomination for future events and aids Idaho Power in
determining which sites may have an opportunity to provide more reduction or change their
reduction strategy if nomination amounts were not achieved.
The company believes by calling at least three events per season the program will be more
effective in providing consistent and reliable reduction. A minimum of three events allows the
company to test processes and software and helps customers fine tune their curtailment plan.
The company called seven load reduction events during the 2022 program season which is the
first time this has occurred since 2012. This past season was extremely hot and dry across the
west with constraints across the Pacific Northwest that impacted energy availability; as a result,
the program was utilized more often. In all seven events the program provided a resource to
assist Load Serving Operators with balancing load and resources, as well as potentially avoiding
additional market purchases.
The variable energy price for utilizing the program after the fourth event was $0.20/kWh and
could be considered the dispatch price for calling load reduction events beginning with the fifth
event. The price of $0.20/kWh is typically higher than the energy market price. The company
believes the variable energy price is appropriate because having a dispatch price below
Agriculture
4%
Commercial
Property
9%
Other
3%
Education
9%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
11%Water &
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
16%
Asphalt,
Concrete,
Gravel
17%
Light Industrial
8%
Food Processing
22%
Idaho Power Company
2022 Flex Peak Program Report Page 7
$0.20/kWh could cause the company to call events more frequently resulting in reduced
participant performance and event fatigue.
Load Reduction Analysis
The baseline that reductions are measured against during load reduction events is the average
kW of the highest energy usage days during the event availability time (3-10 p.m.) from the
highest three days out of the last 10 non-event weekdays. The baseline with a Day-of-
Adjustment (DOA) methodology used in 2022 was changed slightly to be consistent with the
updated event availability time (3-10 p.m.) and to reflect more accurate load reductions.
Individual baselines are calculated for each facility site. Once the original baseline is calculated,
a DOA adjustment is used to more accurately reflect the load behavior of the participant on
event day. The DOA is the difference between the average baseline kW and the average
curtailment day kW during the hour prior to the participant receiving notification of an event,
and can be an upward or downward adjustment. Scaling factors are calculated by dividing the
original baseline kW for each program event hour by the baseline kW of the hour preceding the
event notification time. The actual event day kW for the hour preceding the event notification
time is then multiplied by the scaling factor to calculate the adjusted baseline kW from which
load reduction is measured. The adjusted baseline kW for each hour cannot exceed the
maximum kW amount for any hour from the highest energy use days or the hours during the
event day prior to event notification.
Sites are classified into four size segments based on nomination: 0-50 kW, 51-200 kW, 201-500
kW, and 500+ kW. As Figure 4 depicts, the nomination group with the most sites was in the 0-
200 kW range, accounting for approximately 79% of the sites. Figure 5 shows both the average
and maximum demand reduction achieved during each of the seven curtailment events.
Figure 6 represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all
seven events. To calculate the results, each site’s average load reduction (across seven events)
was divided by its average nomination across the seven events and then grouped by size. 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.
Based on Figure 5 and Figure 6, the segment with the smallest nominated load reduction, 0–50
kW, had the highest number of sites enrolled (66 sites) with an achieved realization rate across
the seven events at 62%. The 51–200 kW segment had the second highest number of sites
enrolled (60 sites) and achieved the highest average realization rate of all groups at 80%. The
201-500 kW group had 25 sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 58%. The largest size
class, 501+ kW, had 8 sites enrolled and achieved an average realization rate across the seven
events at 52%.
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2022 Flex Peak Program Report

Figure 4. Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)

Figure 5. Average and Maximum Reduction Achieved per Event

66
60
25
8
52 52
26
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Co
u
n
t

o
f

S
i
t
e
s
Nominated Amount
2022
2021
18.2
21.6 20.4 20.3
17.0
12.5
14.6
18.7
24.6
21.1 21.1
19.2
14.4 15.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
26-Jul 28-Jul 8-Aug 17-Aug 31-Aug 2-Sep 6-Sep
Me
g
a
w
a
t
t
s

(
M
W
)
Event Date
Average Demand Reduction
Max Demand Reduction
Idaho Power Company
2022 Flex Peak Program Report Page 9

Figure 6. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class
Table 2 shows the program realization rates for 2022 based on average demand reduction per
event. The maximum demand reduction achieved ranged from a low of 14 MW with a
maximum demand reduction realization rate of 53% to a high of 24.5 MW with a maximum
demand reduction realization rate of 86%. The average demand reduction realization rate for
the 2022 season was 63%.
Table 2. Realization rate per event - 2022
Curtailment
Event
Event
Timeframe
Nominated Demand
Reduction
Average
Demand
Reduction
(MW)
Max Demand
Reduction
(MW)
Realization
Rate*
July 26 5-9 pm 28.6 18.2 18.7 64%
July 28 5-9 pm 28.6 21.6 24.5 76%
August 8 5-9 pm 28.7 20.4 21.1 71%
August 17 5-9 pm 28.6 20.3 21.1 71%
August 31 6-10 pm 28.2 17 19.2 60%
September 2 5-9 pm 27.3 12.5 14.4 45%
September 6 5-9 pm 27.3 14.6 15.6 53%
Average 28.2 17.8 19.2 63%
* Based on average reduction

Event performance and realization rates for the 2022 season were reduced due to the impact of
COVID-19 such as supply chain and production issues. Typically, the program achieves a
62%
80%
58%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 2022 Flex Peak Program Report
realization rate of 85%. The baseline and DOA methodology changed this year as well as the
program parameters. COVID-19 has changed business operations, which will have an ongoing
effect on how businesses can curtail load. Also, the later event times have impacted many
customers’ ability to get the load reductions that were more attainable with earlier event
hours. Additionally, this was the first season in eight years that had more than five 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. Table
3 shows the realization rate for each participant in the program for 2022.
Table 3. Realization Rate Per Participant for Each Event - 2022
Participant
Number
July 26
Event
Realization
July 28
Event
Realization
August 8
Event
Realization
August 17
Event
Realization
August 31
Event
Realization
September 2
Event
Realization
September 6
Event
Realization
1 0% 239% 214% 93% 118% 136% 0%
2 24% 6% 4% 14% 0% 5% 5%
3 33% 48% 22% 28% 7% 3% 24%
4 34% 19% 164% 73% 148% 69% 0%
5 96% 97% 133% 125% 78% 61% 97%
6 76% 32% 0% 0% 28% 5% 0%
7 76% 13% 97% 87% 42% 9% 7%
8 87% 74% 73% 87% 53% Opt out Opt out
9 207% 291% 104% 253% 260% 262% 47%
10 13% 0% 187% 130% 60% 0% 100%
11 136% 155% 90% 10% 8% 81% 55%
12 18% 33% 75% 3% 126% 16% 11%
13 7% 8% 35% 23% 98% 111% 16%
14 4% 4% 42% 12% 7% 124% 2%
15 28% 32% 101% 0% 191% 126% 115%
16 99% 243% 130% 346% 138% 147% 16%
17 3% 98% 1% 20% 132% 9% 122%
18 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 4% 2%
19 9% 10% 20% 23% 4% 0% 0%
20 108% 187% 90% 131% 91% 58% 97%
21 116% 113% 155% 77% 36% 212% 0%
22 229% 253% 178% 199% 70% 76% 26%
23 18% 66% 74% 44% 51% 61% 38%
24 152% 132% 16% 101% 0% 66% 87%
25 155% 156% 142% 113% 4% 0% 124%
26 0% 3% 1% 0% 1% 11% 8%
Idaho Power Company
2022 Flex Peak Program Report Page 11
27 639% 96% 145% 448% 75% 179% 70%
28 193% 146% 161% 183% 107% 0% 186%
29 0% 3% 39% 115% 95% 0% 0%
30 2% 0% 21% 46% 9% 2% 1%
31 109% 131% 70% 122% 10% 2% 5%
32 1% 4% 9% 13% 46% 6% 8%
33 11% 10% 2% 9% 38% 5% 19%
34 100% 15% 46% 0% 40% 12% 158%
35 45% 205% 208% 0% 130% 0% 217%
36 0% 59% 165% 71% 134% 182% 363%
37 91% 59% 12% 6% 0% 5% 13%
38 32% 120% 31% 60% 151% 28% 117%
39 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
40 35% 82% 13% 25% 8% 0% 0%
41 76% 9% 1% 16% 23% 2% 4%
42 114% 138% 180% 208% 247% 26% 189%
43 28% 180% 152% 73% 0% 88% 3%
44 74% 51% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%
45 2% 0% 73% 21% 18% 17% 17%
46 91% 48% 73% 205% 45% 37% 38%
47 0% 42% 5% 49% 0% 3% 0%
48 25% 13% 4% 20% 13% 19% 9%
49 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 4% 11%
50 0% 51% 42% 55% 58% 59% 56%
51 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
52 0% 71% 8% 10% 18% 44% 55%
53 1% 18% 0% 2% 63% 3% 41%
54 0% 7% 0% 6% 27% 46% 1%
55 98% 2% 96% 89% 92% 98% 88%
56 64% 0% 85% 18% 39% 33% 88%
57 51% 45% 31% 24% 59% 68% 61%
58 77% 40% 80% 87% 82% 87% 75%
59 6% 2% 126% 3% 2% 3% 2%
60 39% 72% 50% 100% 102% 74% 80%
61 54% 64% 95% 93% 97% 96% 93%
62 112% 126% 45% 101% 96% 26% 99%
63 21% 21% 0% 88% 15% 0% 1%
64 640% 757% 370% 500% 584% 21% 262%
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 2022 Flex Peak Program Report
65 67% 48% 5% 20% 19% 14% 24%
66 115% 80% 94% 92% 70% 95% 131%
67 116% 139% 110% 69% 57% 17% 82%
68 5% 7% 7% 0% 1% 1% 2%
69 N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A*
*Participant #69 terminated their participation in the program on July 8th.
Program Costs
Program costs for 2022 totaled $519,618. Incentive payments were the largest expenditure,
comprising approximately 83% of total costs.
The incentive payments from the seven events called during the 2022 program season were
broken down as follows: the fixed capacity payments total was $430,322 and the variable
energy payment total was $28,890. Variable energy payments were made during the season
based on kilowatt-hour reductions for the fifth, sixth, and seventh events.
Table 4. Annual Program Costs – 2022
Expense Category 2022 Program Costs
Materials & Equipment $ 8,446
Marketing & Administration $ 80,851
Incentive payments $430,322
Total $519,618

CONCLUSION
The program currently contributes approximately 9% 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.

2022 Irrigation Peak
Rewards Program Report

January 2023
© 2023 Idaho Power
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................ ii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Description ................................................................................................................. 1
Interruption Options ........................................................................................................... 1
Parameters .......................................................................................................................... 2
Fixed and Variable Incentives ............................................................................................. 2
Opt-Outs .............................................................................................................................. 3
Participation .................................................................................................................................... 3
Operations ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Equipment ................................................................................................................................. 4
Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 5
Data Gathering and Processing ................................................................................................. 5
Load Reduction Analysis ................................................................................................................. 6
Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations ......................................................... 6
Event Day Highlights ................................................................................................................. 7
July 7 ................................................................................................................................... 7
July 12 ................................................................................................................................. 7
July 26 ................................................................................................................................. 7
July 27 ................................................................................................................................. 8
July 28 ................................................................................................................................. 8
July 29 ................................................................................................................................. 8
August 8 .............................................................................................................................. 8
August 9 .............................................................................................................................. 8
August 17 ............................................................................................................................ 8
September 2 ........................................................................................................................ 9
September 6 ........................................................................................................................ 9
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page ii
Potential Realization Rate Analysis ........................................................................................... 9
Load Reduction Results—Total System Load Data ................................................................. 10
Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 13

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Monthly fixed billing credits for manual and automatic options ..................................... 2
Table 2. Variable incentive after the fourth event ......................................................................... 3
Table 3. Eligible pump locations and participation levels by area.................................................. 4
Table 4. Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event and groups called,
including line losses ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 5. Total left on and average MW on during each event ....................................................... 9
Table 6. Annual program costs by category ................................................................................. 13

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Idaho Power service area ................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. 2022 percentage of participants by service area ............................................................ 4
Figure 3. 2022 Participant Demand and Realization Rate (%) ...................................................... 10

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. The Demand Reduction Calculation Method

Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program (IPR) 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 on high energy use days. Idaho Power estimates
future capacity needs through the Integrated Resource Plan and then plans resources to mitigate
shortfalls. IPR is a result of this planning process and the success of the program is measured by the
amount of demand reduction available to Idaho Power during during periods of high energy demand or
for other system needs.
Program Description
Interruption Options
IPR is available to Idaho Power irrigation customers receiving service under schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho
and Oregon. All Irrigation customers are eligible to participate. There are two options for shut off: an
automatic dispatch option and a manual dispatch option. The program is limited to 4 hours per service
location from 3-10 p.m. (standard option) or for 4 hours during the period from 3-11 p.m. (extended
option). The program is limited to 16 hours per week and 60 hours per season. However, due the size of
the program, the participants have been split into four groups which can be used independently on
different days or used all together at the same time or staggered out at different times on an event day.
If five or more events are dispatched for a group, the participants enrolled in the standard option will
receive an additional variable payment of $0.18 per kilowatt (kW) billed x 4 hours. Participants enrolled
in the extended option (3-11 p.m.) are eligible for an extended variable payment of $0.25 per kW billed
x 4 hours. In 2022, participants were organized into four categories and labeled groups A, B, C, and D.
Automatic Dispatch Option
Pumps enrolled in the automatic dispatch option have one of two devices installed that control the
irrigation pump(s) via signal from Idaho Power. This option requires that all pumps shut off at a site for
the demand-response event. Approximately 99% of the devices are demand response units (DRU) and
use Idaho Power’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to send a signal that opens the contactor
and shuts off the pump. The other 1% of automatic dispatch participants have a cellular device (cell
device) installed. The cell device has the same load control feature as the AMI DRU, except a cellular
network signal is used to send the command for shut off during the event.
Manual Dispatch Option
Pumps with at least 1,000 cumulative horse power (hp) or that Idaho Power has determined to have
limited communication availability are eligible for the manual dispatch option, where participants
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.
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 2
Parameters
• Season dates June 15 to September 15
• Minimum of three load control events
• Load control events may occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4 and September 5,
between the hours of 3-10 p.m. (standard option), or between the hours of 3-11 p.m. (extended
option)
• Load control events may occur up to four hours per day and up to 16 hours per week, but no more
than 60 hours per program season—applies to both standard option and extended option
• Idaho Power notifies automatic participants by phone, email, and/or text messaging four hours
before the start of the event whenever possible
• Idaho Power notifies manual participants by phone, email, and/or text four hours before the start of
the event
• Idaho Power 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
Fixed and Variable Incentives
The IPR incentive structure includes fixed incentives (billing credits) and variable event-related
incentives. Participants receive fixed incentives in the form of monthly billing credits that are not tied to
events: a demand credit and an energy credit. The fixed demand and fixed energy credits for the
automatic dispatch participants were applied to the monthly bill for billing dates June 15 through
September 15. The fixed demand and fixed energy credits for the manual dispatch participants were
paid with a check.
• Fixed demand credits are calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related
incentive amount
• Fixed 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. Monthly billing credits for 2022 are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Monthly fixed billing credits for manual and automatic options
Fixed Demand Credit
($/billing kW)
Fixed Energy Credit
($/billing kWh)
$5.25 $0.008

Variable incentives apply if more than four events occur in the season. Participants who choose the
extended option (3–11 p.m.) are paid a higher variable credit. In 2022 group A and D experienced a total
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 3
of six events and groups B and C experienced seven events which caused the variable payments to be
initiated. The variable incentive rates for 2022 are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Variable incentive after the fourth event
Standard Option 3–10 p.m.
Variable Energy Credit per hour ($/billing kW)
Extended Option 3–11 p.m.
Variable Energy Credit per hour ($/billing kW)
$0.18 $0.25
Opt-Outs
Under the rules of the automatic dispatch option, participants have the option to opt out of any load
control event. Opt-out fees are equal to $6.25 multiplied by the billed kW for that billing cycle. An
explicit opt-out occurs when the participant asks Idaho Power to remove the pump for that specific load
control event.
PARTICIPATION
In March 2022, Idaho Power mailed IPR enrollment packets to all customers. The packets included an
enrollment worksheet with estimated credits for participation, contact worksheets, and an IPR
brochure.
Nominated billing demand was 346,333 kilowatts (kW) with 2,142 pumps enrolled for the 2022 season.
Figure 1 shows Idaho Power’s service area divided into three regional areas: Canyon–West, Capital,
and South–East. Also referenced within this report are sub-areas within the Canyon-West region
(Western, Canyon, and Oregon) and sub-areas within the South-East region (Southern and Eastern).

Figure 1. Idaho Power service area
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 4

Figure 2. 2022 percentage of participants by service area
Table 3. Eligible pump locations and participation levels by area
Idaho Power
Regional Area
Eligible Service
Locations
Manual Dispatch
Option
Automatic
Dispatch Option
Total Enrolled
by Area
Eligible
Enrolled
Canyon 2,888 39 39 1.4%
Western 4,497 52 52 1.2%
Oregon 104 3 61 64 61.5%
Capital 1,879 23 246 269 14.3%
Eastern 3,549 977 977 27.5%
Southern 8,693 4 737 741 8.5%
Totals 21,610 30 2,112 2,142 9.9%

OPERATIONS
Equipment
Idaho Power 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, and allows Idaho Power 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 were turned off and stayed off during the event. During the 2022
season 2,376 DRUs were active and installed at 2,078 pump locations.
6.04%
15.17%
42.60%
32.44%
1.61%
2.15%
Canyon Capital Eastern Southern Western Oregon
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 5
In addition to using AMI technology, Idaho Power developed its own load control device. This device
utilizes 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 Idaho Power to view
status information for each location. Hourly usage data is not available for 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 33 pump locations remain with 39 cellular devices.
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 were identified in 2022, 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
• Water damage to the device
• Device—no longer at the pump location
Data Gathering and Processing
Troubleshooting, electrician work orders, and load reduction calculations are informed by the interval
metering data analysis. Data gathering 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
The AMI data, Cellular data, MV-90 data and logged data from manually read meters record the hourly
reads. The data is useful for troubleshooting of devices and to calculate load reduction for the program.
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 6
LOAD REDUCTION ANALYSIS
The load reduction analysis or program performance for the season is calculated using four primary
sources:
1. Participating service location 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
• 2022 dispatch option
• 2022 dispatch group
• Nominated kW
• Cellular device or DRU serial number or identified as a manual site
Idaho Power 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 5-minute increments.
Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations
Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage before the event
(baseline usage) 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 4 displays the load
reduction results for each event day. The load reduction at generation level includes a 9.7 percent line
loss.
• Baseline usage is 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 timeframe for each
dispatch group.
• Data with errors are removed from the data set and the group average is extrapolated and used
in place of the error set.
• Load reduction for service locations with interval metering data (AMI, MV-90, and manual data
loggers) is calculated and then extrapolated to represent all load including those with errors and
without interval metering data.
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 7
• 2112 pump locations had interval data in 2022, representing 98.6% of the total enrolled pump
locations.
Table 4. Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event and groups called, including line losses
Event Date Groups*
Hourly Load Reduction (MW)
3–4 p.m. 4–5 p.m. 5–6 p.m. 6–7 p.m. 7–8 p.m. 8–9 p.m. 9–10 p.m.
7/7/2022 A, B

115.3 121.2 119.5 119.1
7/12/2022 C, D 5.5 67.1 109.1 108.9 101.1 40.5

7/26/2022 A, C 3.1 68.5 113.5 113.5 108.7 43.0

7/27/2022 B, D

42.2 75.8 76.2 75.8 32.5
7/28/2022 A, C 5.1 59.7 102.6 102.1 96.1 40.6

7/29/2022 B, D

40.4 40.5 76.2 76.8 35.5 35.0
8/8/2022 C, D 16.3 54.4 83.9 80.6 67.8 30.2

8/9/2022 A, B

40.1 74.0 75.1 74.6 33.7

8/17/2022 B, C

4.1 55.8 86.7 86.8 81.4 29.5
9/2/2022 A, B, C, D 4.5 43.7 117.7 155.1 147.3 110.2 37.5
9/6/2022 A, B,C, D

102.8 122.7 151.0 152.1
*Group C had some customers on an early off time.
Event Day Highlights
July 7
The first event, a Thursday, was sixteen days into the program season and the temperature was 95° F in
Boise. Groups A and B were dispatched for shut off. Idaho Power received 80 opt-outs. The opt-out
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.” Due to several devices being set up in an incorrect cycle group, some
service locations were dispatched differently than customer expectations. This caused customer
confusion because some customers were notified but not cycled, and some customers were cycled but
not notified. This issue also caused higher opt-outs and resetting of pump panels which caused device
failure numbers to look higher. The issue was addressed when it was realized after the July 12 event.
July 12
The second event occurred on a Tuesday following a record high heat wave in the northwest including
heat cones over Seattle and Portland. The temperature was 100° F in Boise. Groups C and D were
dispatched for shut off. The event started at 4:00 p.m. and experienced 18 opt-outs. The issue that the
program experienced in the July 7 event was not discovered and therefore customers experienced
similar dispatch issues. After this event the issue was identified and corrected.
July 26
The third event occurred on a Tuesday. Groups A and C were dispatched for shut off. The event started
at 4:00 p.m. and the temperature was 100° F in Boise. For this event, there were five opt-outs and many
of them were the same as the previous event. It seemed that the stress for irrigators had lessened this
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 8
late in the season as some crops were harvested entirely and others had a mature canopy, thus four
hours of no water was less of an issue. The notifications to participants went out as designed and the
communication to the DRUs and cell devices occurred without delays.
July 27
The fourth event occurred on a Wednesday. Idaho Power had called the program on Tuesday of this
same week, so on Wednesday different groups were called. The temperature was 100° F in Boise.
Groups B and D were dispatched for shut off. The event started at 5:00 p.m. with 16 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 28
The fifth event occurred on a Thursday. Groups A and C were dispatched for shut off. The event started
at 4:00 p.m. and 35 pumps opted out; 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.
July 29
The sixth event occurred on a Friday and was the third event for groups B and D. The event started at
4:00 p.m. and the temperature was 104° F in Boise. Ten pumps opted out. The notification system and
communication to the cell devices and DRUs worked as designed.
August 8
The seventh event occurred on a Monday and was the fourth event for groups C and D. The event
started at 4:00 p.m. and the temperature was 104° F in Boise. Eleven pumps opted out. The notifications
to participants went out as designed and the communication to the DRUs and Cell devices occurred
without delays.
August 9
The eighth event occurred on a Tuesday and was the fourth event for groups A and B. The event started
at 4:00 p.m. Temperature was 99° F in Boise. Twenty pumps opted out. The notifications to participants
went out as designed and the communication to the DRUs and cell devices occurred without delays.
August 17
The ninth event occurred on a Wednesday and was the fifth event for groups B and D. Participating
pump locations were eligible for a variable credit payment based on billed kW. The event started at 5:00
p.m. and the temperature in Boise was 103° F. A total of 59 pumps opted out. The notifications to the
participants went out as designed and the communication to the DRUs and cell devices occurred
without delay.
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 9
September 2
The tenth event occurred on a Friday and was the fifth event for groups A and D, and the sixth event for
groups B and C. The event started at 4:00 p.m. and the temperature in Boise was 101° F. A total of 35
pumps opted out. The notifications to the participants went out as planned and the communication to
the DRUs and cell devices occurred on time.
September 6
The eleventh event occurred on a Tuesday and the event was planned for groups A, B and D. However,
an emergency event was called due to issues with fires in the vicinity of transmission lines and a
problem with one of the generating plants, so group C was also called. This was the sixth event for
groups A and D, and the seventh event for groups B and C. Participating pump locations were eligible for
a variable credit payment based on billed kW. The event started at 6:00 p.m. for groups A, B, and D and
7:17 p.m. for group C. The temperature in Boise was 101° F. A total of 35 pumps explicitly opted out. The
notifications to the participants went out as planned and the communication to the DRUs and cell
devices occurred on time.
Table 5 shows the percentage of device failures, opt-outs, small load left on, and average MW on during
each event.
Table 5. Total left on and average MW on during each event
Event Date Device Failure Opt Out
Small Load
Left On
Total Left
On
Average MW On During
the Event
7/7/2022 14.3% 3.8% 1.4% 19.5% 36.0
7/12/2022 16.9% 1.5% 0.7% 19.0% 27.1
7/26/2022 4.8% 0.9% 0.4% 6.1% 7.4
7/27/2022 7.5% 0.6% 0.7% 8.8% 14.5
7/28/2022 4.1% 2.3% 0.3% 6.7% 6.7
7/29/2022 7.4% 0.9% 0.8% 9.0% 12.0
8/8/2022 4.8% 0.6% 0.7% 6.1% 6.5
8/9/2022 3.5% 0.9% 0.3% 4.6% 7.2
8/17/2022 2.9% 4.4% 0.4% 7.7% 6.9
9/2/2022 9.2% 1.3% 0.7% 11.2% 32.9
9/6/2022 5.9% 2.1% 0.8% 8.8% 28.2
Percentages are based on load left on during event compared to total nominated MW.
Data for participants with meter data errors are interpolated.
Potential Realization Rate Analysis
The realization rate is used to determine the IPR potential performance for any day during the season.
It shows what 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 8.2% for the 2022 season, excluding the first two
events where devices were incorrectly categorized. The average of 8.2% was applied to each day
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 10
throughout the irrigation season. By removing the average left on, Idaho Power more accurately
calculates the potential load reduction for any day during the season. Figure 3 shows the 2022 season
participant demand potential realization rate by day (all days except for event days, Sundays, July 4, and
Labor Day).
The 2022 maximum potential realization rate of 67.3% on July 1st results in a maximum potential load
reduction for IPR of 255.6 MW for the 2022 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. Later in the season, when many pumps are not operating due to
crop maturity and reduced watering demands, the potential realization rate is lower.

Figure 3. 2022 Participant Demand and Realization Rate (%)
Load Reduction Results—Total System Load Data
The line graphs presented below show the actual Idaho Power system load in 5-minute intervals for
each event day. Due to the size of the program and the groups that were called, it is readily apparent in
each graph how the program is impacting overall system load.
32
%
43
%
44
%47
%
42
%
50
%52
%54
%
54
%56
%59
%62
%
62
%64
%
67
%
67
%
62
%65
%
66
%
67
%
64
%
63
%
60
%
61
%
59
%
53
%54
%
53
%
54
%
53
%
50
%
47
%
45
%
45
%
45
%
44
%
44
%
43
%
34
%
42
%
41
%
41
%
40
%
38
%
43
%
42
%
42
%
34
%36
%
40
%
41
%
39
%41
%
38
%40
%42
%
44
%
43
%
40
%
41
%
38
%
37
%
32
%
28
%
24
%
22
%
20
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Su
m
m
e
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

%

o
f

N
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

A
m
o
u
n
t
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 11

1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
7/7/2022 Event
07/07/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
7/12/2022 Event
07/12/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
7/26/2022 Event
07/26/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
7/27/2022 Event
07/27/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
7/28/2022 Event
07/28/2022 System Load
7/29/2022 Event
07/29/2022 System Load
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 12

COSTS
Program costs totalled $8,503,140 in 2022 with incentives being the largest portion at 92.8%. Incentives
paid for the 2022 season totalled $7,895,970, including variable incentives. The participants had six or
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
8/8/2022 Event
08/08/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
8/9/2022 Event
08/09/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
8/17/2022 Event
08/17/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
9/2/2022 Event
09/02/2022 System Load
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
9/6/2022 Event
09/06/2022 System Load
Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 13
seven events each and were paid $503,547.59 in variable payments. The estimated maximum cost of
variable incentives had the program run for the full 60 hours totalled an additional $1.97 million.
Table 6. Annual program costs by category
Expense Item 2022 Total Cost
Administration ................................................................................................. $ 129,992.54
Marketing ........................................................................................................ 21,601.31
Materials ......................................................................................................... 117,356.40
Services ............................................................................................................ 334,041.83
Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 26,677.50
Other Expenses................................................................................................ (22,500.00)
Incentives ........................................................................................................ 7,895,970.71
Total (Actuals) ................................................................................................. $ 8,503,140.29

CONCLUSIONS
Highlights from the 2022 season included:
• 2,142 service points enrolled
• 346,333 kW of enrolled billing demand
• Maximum program potential of 255.6 MW including line losses
• Event 1: July 7 – actual reduction 121.2 MW including line losses
• Event 2: July 12 – actual reduction 109.1 MW including line losses
• Event 3: July 26 – actual reduction 113.5 MW including line losses
• Event 4: July 27 – actual reduction 76.2 MW including line losses
• Event 5: July 28 – actual reduction 102.6 MW including line losses
• Event 6: July 29 – actual reduction 76.8 MW including line losses
• Event 7: August 8 – actual reduction 83.9 MW including line losses
• Event 8: August 9 – actual load reduction 75.1 MW including line losses
• Event 9: August 17 – actual load reduction 86.8 MW including line losses
• Event 10: September 2 – actual load reduction 155.1 MW including line losses
• Event 11: September 6 -- actual load reduction 152.1 MW including line losses
• 2,376 active AMI DRUs
• 46 active Idaho Power cellular devices
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 14
• 9.9% of irrigation service locations were signed up to participate in 2022
• Variable credits for the fifth, sixth, and seventh events totalled $503,547.59
• The actual total cost of having the program this season was $8,503,140
• The estimated cost of running the program for the maximum of 60 hours in 2022 is an additional
$1.96 million

Idaho Power 2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 15
Appendix 1. The Demand Reduction Calculation Method
Abbreviations
ADO—Automatic Dispatch Option
AEL—Average Event Load
AMI—Automated Metering Infrastructure
BL—Baseline Load (Baseline Usage)
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.
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
2022 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power
Page 16
The total IPR load reduction was calculated by summing the calculated reduction for the Automatic
Dispatch Option sites and the Manual Dispatch Option sites:
Total Program DR = DRMDO + DRGroup
Historical DSM Expense
and Performance
2002–2022
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 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 (kWh)Peak Demand d
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
Demand Response
A/C Cool Credit
2003 ����������������������204 $275,645 $275,645 0�0
2004 ����������������������420 287,253 287,253 0�5
2005 ����������������������2,369 754,062 754,062 3
2006 ����������������������5,369 1,235,476 1,235,476 6
2007 ����������������������13,692 2,426,154 2,426,154 12
2008 ����������������������20,195 2,969,377 2,969,377 26
2009 ����������������������30,391 3,451,988 3,451,988 39
2010 ����������������������30,803 2,002,546 2,002,546 39
2011 ����������������������37,728 2,896,542 2,896,542 24
2012 ����������������������36,454 5,727,994 5,727,994 45
2013 ����������������������n/a 663,858 663,858 n/a
2014 ����������������������29,642 1,465,646 1,465,646 44
2015 ����������������������29,000 1,148,935 1,148,935 36
2016 ����������������������28,315 1,103,295 1,103,295 34
2017 ����������������������28,214 936,272 936,272 29
2018 ����������������������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
2022 ����������������������19,127 829,771 829,771 20
Total���������������������������$31,413,857 $31,413,857
Flex Peak Program
2009 ����������������������33 528,681 528,681 19
2010 ����������������������60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48
2011 ����������������������111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59
2012 ����������������������102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53
2013 ����������������������100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48
2014 ����������������������93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40
2015 ����������������������72 592,872 592,872 26
2016 ����������������������137 767,997 767,997 42
2017 ����������������������141 658,156 658,156 36
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2018 ����������������������140 433,313 433,313 33
2019 ����������������������145 626,823 626,823 31
2020 ����������������������141 542,480 542,480 24
2021 ����������������������139 501,973 501,973 31
2022 ����������������������159 519,618 519,618 25
Total���������������������������$16,448,969 $16,448,969
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
2022 ����������������������2,142 8,503,140 8,503,140 155
Total���������������������������$121,019,471 $121,019,471
Residential Efficiency
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
2009 ����������������������96 202,005 451,605 409,180 18 0�031 0�086
2010 ����������������������104 189,231 439,559 364,000 20 0�044 0�103
2011 ����������������������131 191,183 550,033 458,500 20 0�028 0�081
2012 ����������������������127 159,867 617,833 444,500 20 0�024 0�094
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 3
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2013 ����������������������215 237,575 992,440 589,142 15 0�032 0�132
2014 ����������������������179 251,446 884,211 462,747 15 0�042 0�148
Total���������������������������852 $1,231,307 $3,935,681 2,728,069 15 $0.044 $0.138
Easy Savings : Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education
2015 ����������������������2,068 127,477 127,477 624,536 10 0�021 0�021
2016 ����������������������2,001 127,587 127,587 402,961 9 0�035 0�035
2017 ����������������������2,470 149,813 149,813 280,049 8 0�064 0�064
2018 ����������������������282 147,936 147,936 29,610 3 1�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
2022 ����������������������267 152,718 152,718 22,755 5 1 1
Total���������������������������7,673 $1,006,354 $1,006,354 1,415,690 9 $0.097 $0.097
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
2022 ����������������������49,136 1,086,813 1,086,813 3,741,954 10 0�037 0�037
Total���������������������������563,297 $16,995,365 $16,995,365 81,018,758 11 $0.025 $0.025
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 $0.001
Energy Efficient Lighting
2002 ����������������������11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0�012 0�015
2003 ����������������������12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0�014 0�021
2004 ����������������������n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2005 ����������������������43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0�007 0�010
2006 ����������������������178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0�008 0�014
2007 ����������������������219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0�012 0�017
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2008 ����������������������436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0�011 0�013
2009 ����������������������549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0�020 0�024
2010 ����������������������1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0�020 0�031
2011 ����������������������1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0�015 0�024
2012 ����������������������925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0�012 0�025
2013 ����������������������1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0�016 0�058
2014 ����������������������1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0�018 0�066
2015 ����������������������1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0�013 0�028
2016 ����������������������1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0�014 0�049
2017 ����������������������1,766,758 4,872,888 11,078,990 37,765,190 12 0�012 0�026
2018 ����������������������1,340,842 2,435,130 3,277,039 18,856,933 14 0�011 0�014
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
2022 ����������������������370,739 534,982 714,445 1,728,352 15 0�030 0�040
Total���������������������������15,603,161 $29,151,022 $61,453,762 262,732,714 9 $0.015 $0.032
Energy House Calls
2002 ����������������������17 26,053 26,053 25,989 20 0�082 0�082
2003 ����������������������420 167,076 167,076 602,723 20 0�023 0�023
2004 ����������������������1,708 725,981 725,981 2,349,783 20 0�025 0�025
2005 ����������������������891 375,610 375,610 1,775,770 20 0�017 0�017
2006 ����������������������819 336,701 336,701 777,244 20 0�035 0�035
2007 ����������������������700 336,372 336,372 699,899 20 0�039 0�039
2008 ����������������������1,099 484,379 484,379 883,038 20 0�045 0�045
2009 ����������������������1,266 569,594 569,594 928,875 20 0�052 0�052
2010 ����������������������1,602 762,330 762,330 1,198,655 20 0�054 0�054
2011 ����������������������881 483,375 483,375 1,214,004 20 0�027 0�027
2012 ����������������������668 275,884 275,884 1,192,039 18 0�016 0�016
2013 ����������������������411 199,995 199,995 837,261 18 0�016 0�016
2014 ����������������������297 197,987 197,987 579,126 18 0�029 0�029
2015 ����������������������362 214,103 214,103 754,646 18 0�020 0�020
2016 ����������������������375 206,437 206,437 509,859 18 0�029 0�029
2017 ����������������������335 183,035 183,035 428,819 16 0�032 0�032
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 5
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������52 38,163 38,163 54,516 19 0�062 0�062
Total���������������������������12,493 $5,970,354 $5,970,354 15,567,813 22 $0.033 $0.033
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 $0.062
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
2006 ����������������������17,444 17,444
2007 ���������������������� 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27�344 27�710
2008 ���������������������� 359 473,551 599,771 561,440 18 0�073 0�092
2009 ���������������������� 349 478,373 764,671 1,274,829 18 0�034 0�054
2010 ���������������������� 217 327,669 1,073,604 1,104,497 20 0�025 0�083
2011 ����������������������130 195,770 614,523 733,405 20 0�018 0�056
2012 ����������������������141 182,281 676,530 688,855 20 0�018 0�066
2013 ����������������������210 329,674 741,586 1,003,730 20 0�022 0�050
2014 ����������������������230 362,014 1,247,560 1,099,464 20 0�022 0�075
2015 ����������������������427 626,369 2,064,055 1,502,172 20 0�028 0�092
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2016 ����������������������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
2021 ����������������������1,048 635,182 2,223,826 1,365,825 15 0�044 0�157
2022 ����������������������1,080 666,016 2,414,026 1,310,260 15 0�050 0�180
Total���������������������������7,744 $7,665,614 $20,881,159 17,705,867 17 $0.039 $0.107
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
2022 ����������������������425 184,858 239,783 28,350 11 0�771 1�000
Total���������������������������3,114 $1,914,998 $2,191,478 1,114,151 11 $0.203 $0.233
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
2022 ����������������������104,826 964,791 964,791 20,643,379 1 0�044 0�044
Total���������������������������396,007 $3,229,408 $3,229,408 58,726,919 1 $0.052 $0.052
Home Improvement Program
2008 ����������������������282 123,454 157,866 317,814 25 0�029 0�037
2009 ����������������������1,188 321,140 550,148 1,338,876 25 0�019 0�032
2010 ����������������������3,537 944,716 2,112,737 3,986,199 45 0�016 0�035
2011 ����������������������2,275 666,041 2,704,816 917,519 45 0�038 0�155
2012 ����������������������840 385,091 812,827 457,353 45 0�044 0�093
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 7
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 $0.026 $0.084
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
2022 ����������������������97 34,181 34,181 41,959 11 0�096 0�096
Total���������������������������2,230 $756,682 $756,682 1,839,363 11 $0.049 $0.049
Oregon Residential Weatherization
2002 ����������������������24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0�010 0�389
2003 ����������������������-943
2004 ����������������������4 1,057 1,057
2005 ����������������������4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0�006 0�034
2006 ����������������������4,126 4,126
2007 ����������������������1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0�028 0�042
2008 ����������������������3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0�025 0�096
2009 ����������������������1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0�203 0�223
2010 ����������������������1 6,050 6,275 320 30 0�011 0�062
2011 ����������������������8 7,926 10,208 21,908 30 0�021 0�027
2012 ����������������������5 4,516 11,657 11,985 30 0�022 0�056
2013 ����������������������14 9,017 14,369 14,907 30 0�035 0�055
2014 ����������������������13 5,462 9,723 11,032 30 0�028 0�050
2015 ����������������������4 5,808 10,388 11,910 30 0�028 0�050
2016 ����������������������7 3,930 5,900 2,847 30 0�079 0�118
2017 ����������������������7 2,384 3,755 2,154 30 0�063 0�099
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy (kWh)Peak Demand d
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������7 8,825 8,825 0 45 n/a n/a
Total���������������������������116 $98,348 $186,460 126,713 28 $0.057 $0.108
Rebate Advantage
2003 ����������������������73 27,372 79,399 227,434 45 0�008 0�022
2004 ����������������������105 52,187 178,712 332,587 45 0�010 0�034
2005 ����������������������98 46,173 158,462 312,311 45 0�009 0�032
2006 ����������������������102 52,673 140,289 333,494 45 0�010 0�027
2007 ����������������������123 89,269 182,152 554,018 45 0�010 0�021
2008 ����������������������107 90,888 179,868 463,401 45 0�012 0�025
2009 ����������������������57 49,525 93,073 247,348 25 0�015 0�029
2010 ����������������������35 39,402 66,142 164,894 25 0�018 0�031
2011 ����������������������25 63,469 85,044 159,325 25 0�024 0�033
2012 ����������������������35 37,241 71,911 187,108 25 0�012 0�024
2013 ����������������������42 60,770 92,690 269,891 25 0�014 0�021
2014 ����������������������44 63,231 89,699 269,643 25 0�014 0�020
2015 ����������������������58 85,438 117,322 358,683 25 0�014 0�020
2016 ����������������������66 111,050 148,142 411,272 25 0�016 0�022
2017 ����������������������66 104,996 229,104 214,479 45 0�025 0�055
2018 ����������������������107 147,483 355,115 284,559 45 0�027 0�064
2019 ����������������������109 156,748 355,897 353,615 44 0�023 0�052
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
2022 ����������������������97 167,622 402,649 255,541 44 0�043 0�104
Total���������������������������1,553 $1,799,154 $3,790,123 6,001,284 39 $0.020 $0.043
Residential New Construction Program (ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest)
2003 ����������������������13,597 13,597 0
2004 ����������������������44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0�103 0�246
2005 ����������������������200 253,105 315,311 415,600 25 0�045 0�056
2006 ����������������������439 469,609 602,651 912,242 25 0�038 0�049
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 9
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2007 ����������������������303 475,044 400,637 629,634 25 0�056 0�047
2008 ����������������������254 302,061 375,007 468,958 25 0�048 0�059
2009 ����������������������474 355,623 498,622 705,784 25 0�039 0�055
2010 ����������������������630 375,605 579,495 883,260 25 0�033 0�051
2011 ����������������������308 259,762 651,249 728,030 32 0�020 0�051
2012 ����������������������410 453,186 871,310 537,447 35 0�046 0�089
2013 ����������������������267 352,882 697,682 365,370 36 0�053 0�104
2014 ����������������������243 343,277 689,021 332,682 36 0�057 0�114
2015 ����������������������598 653,674 1,412,126 773,812 36 0�046 0�099
2016 ����������������������110 142,158 297,518 150,282 36 0�051 0�107
2017 ����������������������277 323,520 603,420 608,292 45 0�029 0�054
2018 ����������������������307 400,912 926,958 777,369 36 0�028 0�064
2019 ����������������������322 534,118 1,411,391 774,597 54 0�035 0�092
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
2022 ����������������������109 235,732 578,922 337,562 58 0�045 0�110
Total���������������������������5,633 $6,805,133 $12,651,220 10,541,390 36 $0.044 $0.082
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
2022 ����������������������1,874 128,856 128,856 39,595 40 0�218 0�218
Total���������������������������17,747 $1,177,912 $1,177,912 207,728 32 $0.400 $0.400
Simple Steps, Smart Savings
2007 ����������������������9,275 9,275 0
2008 ����������������������3,034 250,860 468,056 541,615 15 0�044 0�082
2009 ����������������������9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0�031 0�051
2010 ����������������������16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0�057 0�070
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
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
2022 ����������������������27 205,788 205,788 48,233 30 0�307 0�307
Total���������������������������1,459 $10,490,245 $10,502,454 5,433,667 24 $0.150 $0.150
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 $0.052 $0.081
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 11
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Residential—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC)
WAQC—Idaho
2002 ����������������������197 235,048 492,139
2003 ����������������������208 228,134 483,369
2004 ����������������������269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0�029 0�050
2005 ����������������������570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0�033 0�045
2006 ����������������������540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0�037 0�056
2007 ����������������������397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0�029 0�040
2008 ����������������������439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0�025 0�032
2009 ����������������������427 1,260,922 1,937,578 4,563,832 25 0�021 0�033
2010 ����������������������373 1,205,446 2,782,597 3,452,025 25 0�026 0�060
2011 ����������������������273 1,278,112 1,861,836 2,648,676 25 0�036 0�052
2012 ����������������������228 1,321,927 1,743,863 621,464 25 0�157 0�208
2013 ����������������������245 1,336,742 1,984,173 657,580 25 0�150 0�223
2014 ����������������������244 1,267,212 1,902,615 509,620 25 0�184 0�276
2015 ����������������������233 1,278,159 2,072,901 529,426 25 0�179 0�290
2016 ����������������������234 1,254,338 1,870,481 722,430 25 0�129 0�192
2017 ����������������������196 1,269,507 1,721,632 654,464 30 0�134 0�182
2018 ����������������������190 1,254,630 1,795,301 641,619 30 0�136 0�194
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
2022 ����������������������147 1,277,717 2,024,735 272,647 30 0�338 0�535
Total���������������������������5,879 $24,296,086 $36,467,095 31,190,960 25 $0.060 $0.089
WAQC—Oregon
2002 ����������������������31 24,773 47,221 68,323 25 0�027 0�051
2003 ����������������������29 22,255 42,335 102,643 25 0�016 0�031
2004 ����������������������17 13,469 25,452 28,436 25 0�035 0�067
2005 ����������������������28 44,348 59,443 94,279 25 0�035 0�047
2006 ����������������������25
2007 ����������������������11 30,694 41,700 42,108 25 0�054 0�074
2008 ����������������������14 43,843 74,048 73,841 25 0�040 0�068
2009 ����������������������10 33,940 46,513 114,982 25 0�023 0�031
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������0 3,778 3,778 0
Total���������������������������248 $736,649 $1,095,587 1,102,845 25 $0.051 $0.076
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 $0.058 $0.088
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 $0.023 $0.035
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits (Commercial Education Initiative)
2005 ����������������������3,497 3,497
2006 ����������������������4,663 4,663
2007 ����������������������26,823 26,823
2008 ����������������������72,738 72,738
2009 ����������������������120,584 120,584
2010 ����������������������68,765 68,765
2011 ����������������������89,856 89,856
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 13
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������334 22,770 22,770 48,758 10 0�059 0�059
Total���������������������������6,900 $1,178,544 $1,178,544 1,615,641 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
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
2022 ����������������������88 2,780,507 3,641,930 27,615,777 12 0�011 0�015
Total���������������������������1,443 $30,807,651 $65,754,495 226,707,011 12 $0.015 $0.032
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
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
2022 ����������������������525 4,870,916 13,402,016 22,890,679 12 0�024 0�065
Total���������������������������17,855 $65,906,507 $159,697,439 440,083,703 12 $0.017 $0.041
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 $0.020 $0.038
Oregon Commercial Audit
2002 ����������������������24 5,200 5,200
2003 ����������������������21 4,000 4,000
2004 ����������������������7 0 0
2005 ����������������������7 5,450 5,450
2006 ����������������������6
2007 ����������������������1,981 1,981
2008 ����������������������58 58
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 15
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������12 7,493 7,493
Total���������������������������253 $125,164 $125,164
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
2022 ����������������������680 1,345,429 1,345,429 3,228,366 11 0�049 0�049
Total���������������������������1,271 $2,717,315 $2,717,315 6,430,468 5 $0.091 $0.091
Industrial
Custom Projects
2003 ����������������������1,303 1,303
2004 ����������������������1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0�058 0�069
2005 ����������������������24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0�010 0�033
2006 ����������������������40 1,625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0�009 0�024
2007 ����������������������49 3,161,866 7,012,686 29,789,304 3�6 12 0�012 0�026
2008 ����������������������101 4,045,671 16,312,379 41,058,639 4�8 12 0�011 0�044
2009 ����������������������132 6,061,467 10,848,123 51,835,612 6�7 12 0�013 0�024
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������106 8,919,927 25,715,468 56,157,060 13 0�017 0�049
Total���������������������������2,507 $132,381,486 $295,904,345 888,489,944 13 $0.016 $0.035
Green Motors Rewind—Industrial
2016 ����������������������14 123,700 7
2017 ����������������������13 143,976 7
2018 ����������������������25 64,167 7
2019 ����������������������12 117,223 8
2020 ����������������������10 56,012 8
2021 ����������������������4 12,172 20,430 8
2022 ����������������������9 3,424 19,851 8
Total���������������������������87 $0 $15,596 545,358 7
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
2003 ����������������������2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0�0 15 0�106 0�141
2004 ����������������������33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0�4 15 0�014 0�048
2005 ����������������������38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0�4 15 0�014 0�062
2006 ����������������������559 2,779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5�1 8 0�024 0�073
2007 ����������������������816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3�4 8 0�024 0�103
2008 ����������������������961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3�5 8 0�026 0�073
2009 ����������������������887 2,293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3�4 8 0�026 0�077
2010 ����������������������753 2,200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3�3 8 0�030 0�096
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 17
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2022 ����������������������519 2,080,027 14,083,686 6,937,855 18 0�027 0�179
Total���������������������������15,172 $41,701,474 $194,989,441 235,585,492 9 $0.024 $0.113
Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation
2016 ����������������������23 73,617 19
2017 ����������������������27 63,783 19
2018 ����������������������26 67,676 19
2019 ����������������������34 44,705 20
2020 ����������������������23 36,147 20
2021 ����������������������12 87,254 19,352 21
2022 ����������������������6 5,634 16,951 23
Total���������������������������151 $0 $92,888 322,230 20
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 $66,498
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2020 ����������������������1,811,869 1,811,869
2021 ����������������������2,226,910 2,226,910
2022 ����������������������2,795,885 2,795,885
Total���������������������������$14,947,383 $14,947,383
Local Energy Efficiency Fund
2003 ����������������������56 5,100 5,100
2004 ����������������������23,449 23,449
2005 ����������������������2 14,896 26,756 78,000 10 0�024 0�042
2006 ����������������������480 3,459 3,459 19,027 7 0�009 0�009
2007 ����������������������1 7,520 7,520 9,000 7 0�135 0�135
2008 ����������������������2 22,714 60,100 115,931 0�0 15 0�019 0�049
2009 ����������������������1 5,870 4,274 10,340 0�0 12 0�064 0�047
2010 ����������������������1 251 251 0�0
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 19
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 $0.029 $0.044
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 $270,105
Residential Education Initiative
2005 ����������������������7,498 7,498
2006 ����������������������56,727 56,727
2007 ����������������������
2008 ����������������������150,917 150,917
2009 ����������������������193,653 193,653
2010 ����������������������222,092 222,092
2011 ����������������������159,645 159,645
2012 ����������������������174,738 174,738
2013 ����������������������416,166 416,166
2014 ����������������������6,312 423,091 423,091 1,491,225 11
2015 ����������������������149,903 149,903
2016 ����������������������290,179 290,179
2017 ����������������������223,880 223,880
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy (kWh)Peak Demand d
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
2018 ����������������������172,215 172,215
2019 ����������������������160,851 160,851
2020 ����������������������223,731 223,731
2021 ����������������������483,067 483,067
2022 ����������������������300,175 300,175
Total���������������������������$3,808,528 $3,808,528 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 $160,762
NEEA
2002 ����������������������1,286,632 1,286,632 12,925,450
2003 ����������������������1,292,748 1,292,748 11,991,580
2004 ����������������������1,256,611 1,256,611 13,329,071
2005 ����������������������476,891 476,891 16,422,224
2006 ����������������������930,455 930,455 18,597,955
2007 ����������������������893,340 893,340 28,601,410
2008 ����������������������942,014 942,014 21,024,279
2009 ����������������������968,263 968,263 10,702,998
2010 ����������������������2,391,217 2,391,217 21,300,366
2011 ����������������������3,108,393 3,108,393 20,161,728
2012 ����������������������3,379,756 3,379,756 19,567,984
2013 ����������������������3,313,058 3,313,058 20,567,965
2014 ����������������������3,305,917 3,305,917 26,805,600
2015 ����������������������2,582,919 2,582,919 23,038,800
2016 ����������������������2,676,387 2,676,387 24,352,800
2017 ����������������������2,698,756 2,698,756 24,440,400
2018 ����������������������2,500,165 2,500,165 25,666,800
2019 ����������������������2,721,070 2,721,070 18,368,135
2020 ����������������������2,789,210 2,789,210 17,614,323
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 21
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2021 ����������������������2,977,678 2,977,678 16,818,788
2022 1 ��������������������2,789,937 2,789,937 24,448,132
Total���������������������������$45,281,416 $45,281,416 416,746,789
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
2020 ����������������������49,354,064 100,230,772 198,432,599 336�0
2021 ����������������������37,056,897 79,194,093 142,920,507 312�8
2022 ����������������������41,456,433 82,964,848 169,888,530 199�7
Total Direct Program ������������������������������$634,880,818 $1,161,313,482 2,751,640,723
Indirect Program Expenses
DSM Overhead and Other Indirect
2002 ����������������������128,855
2003 ����������������������-41,543
2004 ����������������������142,337
2005 ����������������������177,624
2006 ����������������������309,832
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 22 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2007 ����������������������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
2022 ����������������������1,507,146
Total���������������������������$$22,829,168
Total Expenses
2002 ����������������������2,061,375
2003 ����������������������2,528,685
2004 ����������������������3,969,550
2005 ����������������������6,700,972
2006 ����������������������11,484,013
2007 ����������������������15,662,377
2008 ����������������������21,193,521
2009 ����������������������34,846,766
2010 ����������������������45,832,851
2011 ����������������������46,266,252
2012 ����������������������49,326,859
2013 ����������������������26,841,378
2014 ����������������������36,713,333
2015 ����������������������39,040,935
2016 ����������������������42,763,463
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report Page 23
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Peak Demand d
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2017 ����������������������47,757,496
2018 ����������������������44,262,080
2019 ����������������������48,584,696
2020 ����������������������50,556,303
2021 ����������������������38,353,503
2022 ����������������������42,963,579
Total 2002–2022 ��������$657,709,986
a Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from Idaho Power’s 2019 Second Amended Integrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings.
b The Total Utility Cost is all cost incurred by Idaho Power to implement and manage a DSM program.
c The Total Resource Cost is the total expenditures for a DSM program from the point of view of Idaho Power and its customers as a whole.
d Peak Demand is reported for programs that directly reduce load or measure demand reductions during summer peak season. Peak demand reduction for demand response programs is reported at the generation level assuming 9.7% peak line losses.
1 Savings are preliminary estimates provided by NEEA. Final savings for 2022 will be provided by NEEA April 2023.
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002—2022
Page 24 Demand-Side Management 2022 Annual Report
22
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program
Designed and implemented by Tinker LLC
SCHOOL YEAR 2021-2022ANNUAL REPORT
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAM
Joseph Thrasher
MESSAGE FROM TINKER LLC
Dear Denise,
We wanted to take a moment to express our appreciation and gratitude
for selecting Tinker to deliver IPC's Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program.
We thoroughly enjoyed working with the teachers, students, and parents
within your service area. This was such a great group of people to work
with!
We truly appreciate your support and are excited to continue as your
preferred vendor for years to come. Thanks again!
Cheerfully,
Joseph Thrasher
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Message from Tinker LLC 2
OVERVIEW
Executive Summary 4
DESCRIPTION
Program Description 6
OPERATIONS
Program Timeline 8
Program Materials 9
Program Content 12
Energy Efficiency Kits 13
Student Competitions 14
Teacher Recruitment 16
OUTCOMES
School Participation 17
Projected Savings 18
Student Assessments 20
Student Pledges 22
Student Survey 23
Teacher Evaluations 26
Teacher Mini-Grants 28
Continuous Improvement 29
APPENDICES
Appendix A Student Kit Savings Calculations 30
Appendix B Teacher Kit Savings Calculations 37
Appendix C Participation Tables 38
Appendix D Participant Letters 50
4
Tinker LLC is pleased to submit this annual report describing the implementation and outcomes
of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program ("SEEK"). From August 2021 through June 2022,
Tinker LLC supported the energy efficiency education efforts in Idaho and Oregon through a
partnership with Idaho Power Company ("IPC").
The program was developed to educate students in
IPC's service area about energy efficiency through the
implementation of a locally-based education program within
schools. Tinker LLC and IPC staff developed curriculum that
included lessons, STEM activities, digital program resources,
student contests, teacher grants, and an Energy Efficiency
Kit containing energy-saving devices for each student. The
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is known and marketed
to the schools as the EnergyWise Program. Program objectives
included the following:
• Leverage classroom teachers from schools within IPC’s
service area to provide their 4th – 6th grade students with
quality, age-appropriate instruction regarding the wise use
of electricity.
• Encourage the wise use of electricity at home by engaging
students and their families in activities that support and
reinforce energy efficiency and conservation concepts.
• Provide age-appropriate tools to facilitate student
participation and incentives to encourage follow through
for all Program participants, i.e., teachers, students, and
parents.
• Cross-market IPC’s other residential energy efficiency
programs as directed by IPC.
• Provide IPC with annual energy savings information in the
form of an annual program summary report based on
student responses.
• Enhance IPC’s brand as a trusted energy advisor.
• Maintain or enhance IPC’s customer satisfaction.
School Year 2021-2022
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
174
schools participated
By the Numbers
338
teachers participated
12,257
students enrolled
188.02kWh per student kit distributed
132.40
kWh per teacher kit distributed
2,349,367
kWh saved annually
5
Tinker LLC managed all aspects of the program design and implementation, including school
recruitment, lesson development, day-to-day program management, and reporting.
Below are the program outcomes:
1. Curriculum. To support educational goals, Tinker worked with IPC staff to develop six lessons
specifically for Idaho Power students. Each lesson included locally-based information, teacher
resources, hands-on activities, and supported Idaho state education standards. Below is the
list of lessons developed:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
• Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
• Efficiency and Conservation
2. School Participation. During the school year 2021-2022, 174 schools, representing 338
teachers and 12,257 students participated in the program. Each of these students received an
Energy Efficiency Kit and access to digital learning resources.
3. Knowledge Retention. To determine the baseline knowledge, students were asked to
complete a 10-question assessment before the program was introduced. After completing
the lessons, they completed a post-program assessment to determine the knowledge gained
through the program. The average pre-assessment test score was 66%. After completing the
lessons, the average test score was 87%--an increase of 21%.
4. Energy Efficiency Kits. A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 12,257 students
and 338 teachers. Each contained products that can be used at home to conserve water and
energy. Students work with their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
5. Student Survey. At the close of the program, students are asked to complete a survey
detailing the actions they took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they
installed. Surveys were received from 7,720 students. Based on the reported data, projected
savings from kits can be found below.
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Green House Gas
Reduction
Annual savings per student kit:188.02 kWh 3.44 Therms 1,408.11 Gals 0.15 Metric Tons
Annual savings per teacher kit:132.40 kWh 2.42 Therms 991.51 Gals 0.11 Metric Tons
Annual program savings:2,349,367 kWh 42,995 Therms 17,594,315 Gals 1,893.45 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings:18,405,454 kWh 429,947 Therms 175,943,147 Gals 15,318.73 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A & B
6
School Year 2021-2022
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMDESCRIPTION
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program is a locally-based curriculum designed to teach
fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade school students about energy and how to use it wisely. Offered as
a completely turnkey program, Tinker managed all aspects of the program implementation.
Tinker designed and customized three lessons appropriate for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade
students attending schools in IPC's service territory. Next, Tinker contacted fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade teachers using a variety of communication tools to introduce the program and
collect enrollment commitments. Participating teachers, students, and parents were then
provided access to Tinker’s online platform or web application.
Program Delivery
Delivered by classroom teachers, the curriculum fit seamlessly within the current classroom
setting. The curriculum included lessons that were designed to support Idaho and Oregon
state education standards, featured engaging digital content, and included hands-on
activities. Moreover, each lesson included resources such as video streaming content, online
assessments, and more.
Using resources from our web application, teachers delivered the curriculum to their students.
Students and parents were also provided access to the web application, which included portals
designed specifically for each participating
segment.
IPC was provided with its own customized
version of the web application that displayed
its logo at the top of each page and
referenced it throughout the pages.
I love the online portion compared
to the workbook in previous years.
V. Medda, Teacher
Summit Elementary School
""
7
The digital delivery of the program through the web application allowed for:
• Program Tracking. All program actions were tracked and recorded in real-time. The data was
analyzed and used to inform unique actions by program staff and published within an on-line
dashboard. IPC staff was supplied credentials to access the dashboard and encouraged to
follow program progress.
• Additional Engagement Opportunities. Other IPC related programs were promoted within
each relevant portal.
Upon completion of the lessons, students acquired new knowledge of energy efficiency, and
each student was provided an Energy Efficiency Kit containing energy-saving devices. During
the final lesson, students completed exercises using the devices included in the kit, giving their
families an opportunity to immediately and consistently conserve water and energy.
Throughout the program, students
completed simple surveys and
assessments. This data was collected,
analyzed, and summarized to gauge
the curriculum’s impact on students.
At the close of the unit, students
and parents completed a pledge to
continue to conserve energy and
water.
At the end of the school year, all data generated from the lessons and any predefined success
metrics were collected to present in this Final Report.
I loved that the program provided education
on energy usage and awareness for the
students and made it applicable for them
to participate in conserving and efficiency.
K. Platt, Teacher
Heights Elementary School
"
"
8
School Year 2021-2022
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMPROGRAM TIMELINE
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Ph
a
s
e

1
:

L
a
u
n
c
h
Branding information provided
Incentive programs developed
Print & digital materials published
Quality control checks performed
Eligible school information identified
Ph
a
s
e

2
:

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Teachers introduced to the program
Participation
commitments collected
Access to digital materials
granted
Materials and Kits shipped
Communication with
teachers
Collection & evaluation of
program data
Ph
a
s
e

3
:

Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
Program closed to participation
Program data compiled
and analyzed
Final report developed and delivered
9
Phase 1: Launch
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMPROGRAM MATERIALS
During the program, teachers, students, and parents were provided with a variety of resources
expertly designed to educate about energy efficiency and encourage energy efficient behaviors.
These resources, including the web application, a printed teacher guide, parent letter, and online
lesson materials, were customized to feature the IPC logo and brand. Each are described on the
following pages and below.
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Parents of participating students were provided
access to the parent portal through the web
application. The available resources included the
following.
• A parent letter describing the program, its
goals, and the energy efficiency opportunities
available
• Additional energy efficiency resources offered
by IPC
• Program evaluation
PARENT PROGRAM RESOURCES
I loved that my students were able
to take this activity home with
the student kits. It helped with
engagement and parent involvement.
A. Crisp, Teacher
Central Elementary School
"
"
10
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating teachers were provided a printed
Teacher Guide to support the digital resources.
The Teacher Guide included the following:
• Program goals
• Instructions to administer the program
• Unit plan
• Lesson plans
• Contest and mini-grant information
• Answer keys
TEACHER PROGRAM RESOURCES
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Teachers were provided access to the teacher portal
through the web application. The available resources
included the following.
• Instructions to guide teachers through the
administration of the program
• Supported Idaho state education standards
• Letter to parents in English and Spanish
• Lesson materials including:
o Lesson plans
o Digital slides for classroom presentations
o Online resources
o Video content
o Online homework exercises
o Assessments
• Post-program Evaluation
• Student progress reporting
11
DIGITAL MATERIALS
Students were provided access to the student
portal within the web application. Resources
available included the following:
• Instructions for installing the products
inside the kits
• Access to digital lessons and assessments
• Video contest information
• The student leader board
• Additional energy efficiency information
STUDENT PROGRAM RESOURCES
SUPPORTING PHYSICAL MATERIALS
Participating students were provided a student
workbook to support the digital resources. The
student workbook included the following:
• Classroom activity worksheets
• Classroom assessments
• The Energy Efficiency Kit product installation
guide and data collection forms
12
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMPROGRAM CONTENT
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program curriculum was designed to build upon and supplement
fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade science, math, and language arts curriculum. The curriculum included
the following:
Locally-Based Content: To support educational goals, Tinker
worked with IPC staff to develop six lessons specifically for
students. Each lesson included locally-based information and
supported Idaho state education standards. Below is the list of
lessons we developed:
• Natural Resources
• Electric Energy
• Energy-Water Nexus
• Peak and Off-Peak Time
• Electric Bill
• Efficiency and Conservation
To support each lesson, Tinker worked with IPC staff to include
teaching resources, video resources, hans-on activities, and
homework exercises in the lessons.
At the conclusion of each classroom lesson, teachers had the option of assigning online homework
exercises that reviewed the content taught in the classroom. Tinker worked with IPC staff to develop
each homework exercise. These exercises included locally-based video content, interactive activities,
labeled graphics, flash card grids, and more.
The extensive information in each exercise was
designed to be engaging and to maximize the
knowledge retention of the student.
Web Application
The program activities were
great. I would love to have
more, easy to use stem activities
tosupport the information.
K. Strawser, Teacher
Melba Elementary School
"
"
13
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT
A take-home Energy Efficiency Kit was provided to 338 teachers
and 12,257 students. Each contained products that can be used
at home to conserve water and energy. Students work with their parents to use the products and report on their actions.
Each kit contained the following items:
• Showerhead• Three LED Lightbulbs
• LED Night Light
• Shower Timer
• Digital Thermometer
• Filter Whistle• Water Flow Rate Bag
• Quick Start Guide
• Water Bottle Decals
Energy Efficiency Kit
14
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMSTUDENT COMPETITIONS
A fun component of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program was the student competitions: the
Student Challenge, Video Contest, and Photo Contest.
Student Challenge
Each student that registered for the online activities were automatically entered into the Student
Challenge. As students progressed through the online portion of the program, they earned points for
each activity completed. In the web application, students followed their point progress and competed
with classmates. Below is a sample of these activities:
Action Points Earned
Complete the online homework exercises 4,000
Install the products from the Energy Efficiency Kit 4,000
Complete the student survey 4,000
Submit a video contest entry 1,000
Complete the online pledge 500
The five students that accumlated the most points were awarded prizes.
Photo Contest
Students were given the opportunity to participate in a product
photo contest. Students snapped a photo of a product installed
from their kit for a chance to earn points and win prizes. Photos
were uploaded through the Tinker web application. Thirteen entries
were selected as winners and received prizes.
Photo Contest Submission
15
Video Contest
As part of the program, students were given the opportunity
to participate in a video contest. Students could create a short
two- to three-minute video about energy efficiency for a chance
to win. Videos could be uploaded through the Tinker web
application. Five entries were selected as winners and received
prizes.
Video Contest SubmissionVideo Contest Submission Video Contest Submission
My favorite thing about the
program was the kit boxes, the
online homework quizzes for the
students, and points awarded.
C. Royse, Teacher
Silver Trail Elementary School
"
"
16
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMRECRUITMENT
Beginning in August 2021, Tinker began the planning and recruitment of eligible teachers. Eligible
teachers were from elementary schools in IPC’s service area based on a list of zip codes and
communities served as provided by IPC. Tinker staff researched school and teacher information as
well as determined eligibility in such a way that students who received a kit at that school in a prior
grade did not have a second opportunity to receive a kit at the same school in a subsequent grade. As
needed, IPC provided written clarification and verification of school and regional assignments.
In September 2021, Tinker commenced active recruitment of
eligible teachers. The program was offered to fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade teachers using a variety of communication tools to
introduce the program and collect enrollment commitments. This
included email templates, phone scripts, a promotional flyer, and
video content. Tinker received commitments from 338 teachers. In
April 2022, Tinker ceased active recruitment activities.
Teacher Recruitment Video
17
During the 2021–2022 school year, fourth-, fifth, and sixth-grade teachers were introduced to the
program and asked to participate. Commitments were received from 174 schools, representing
338 teachers and 12,257 students. The table represents participation in each region of IPC's service
territory.
Region State Teachers Students Total Kits
Canyon ID 65 2797 2862
Capital ID 129 3922 4051
Eastern ID 44 1,542 1,586
Southern ID 54 2620 2674
Western ID 29 1,019 1,048
Total Idaho:321 11,900 12,221
Western OR 17 357 374
Total Oregon:17 357 374
*Detailed participation data can be found in Appendix C
Phase 2: Implementation
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMPARTICIPATION
18
Through the program, 12,257 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to students. The kits were
packed with high efficiency products that when installed help to curb household water and
energy usage while reducing green house gas emissions. Students work with their parents to install the products and report their actions. Using the data collected, we calculated the
projected resource savings. Projections are found below:
Electricity Natural Gas Water
Green House Gas
Reduction
Annual savings per
student kit 188.02 kWh 3.44 Therms 1,408 Gals 0.15 Metric Tons
Annual program savings
student kits 2,304,617.38 kWh 42,176 Therms 17,259,185 Gals 1,857.40 Metric Tons
Lifetime program
savings student kits 18,054,873.77 kWh 421,757 Therms 172,591,850 Gals 15,027 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMPROJECTED SAVINGS
Through the program, 338 Energy Efficiency Kits were distributed to teachers. Like students,
teachers are asked to install the products. However, unlike students, some teachers received
a kit in a prior school year or prior school years. To best estimate the projected savings from
the teacher kits, Tinker has applied a 25% discount to the kit savings for each year a teacher
previously received a kit. The table below depicts the percentage of savings applied to teacher
kits based on previous program participation.
Participating
Years
Number of
Teachers
Savings Percentage
Applied
1 136 100%
2 75 75%
3 56 50%
4 71 25%
19
The factors that Tinker considered to determine the discount percentage were:
1. Energy efficiency products within the kits have changed occasionally year-over-year.
Thus the entirety of the product savings for those products in which teachers have never
received can be counted.
2. Products such as the LED lightbulbs and showerhead can be used in others areas of the
home. Thus savings can be counted for those products.
3. In future program years, we intend to ask the teachers to report specific installation data.
In the absence of data for this year a reasonable discount percentage was applied.
Savings projections for the Teacher Kits are found below:
Electricity Natural Gas Water Green House Gas Reduction
Average annual savings
per teacher kit 132.40 kWh 2.42 Therms 991.51 Gals 0.11 Metric Tons
Average annual program
savings teacher kits 44,749.85 kWh 818.95 Therms 335,129.8 Gals 36.05 Metric Tons
Average lifetime program
savings teacher kits 350,580.07 kWh 8,189.46 Therms 3,351,298.05 Gals 291.73 Metric Tons
*The algorithms and data used for these calculations can be found in Appendix B
Electricity Natural Gas Water Green House Gas Reduction
Annual program savings:2,349,367 kWh 42,995 Therms 17,594,315 Gals 1,893.45 Metric Tons
Lifetime program savings:18,405,454 kWh 429,947 Therms 175,943,147 Gals 15,318.73 Metric Tons
Total projected program savings was derived by adding the projected savings from students and
teachers. The total projected savings is found below:
20
To determine the effectiveness of the program, we collected pre- and post-program data to assess
changes in students' knowledge, attitude, and behavior with respect to energy efficiency. The outcome is provided below.
AFTER PARTICIPATING IN
THE PROGRAM, STUDENTS
INCREASED THEIR TEST
SCORES BY 21%
ON THE AVERAGE
STUDENTS SCORED 87%
ON THE
POST-PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT.
ON THE AVERAGE
STUDENTS SCORED 66%
ON THE
PRE-PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT.
PRE-ASSESSMENT
POST-
ASSESSMENT 21%
National Average: 68%National Average: 85%National Average: 17%
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMPROGRAM ASSESSMENTS
21
At the conclusion of each lesson, students were ask to complete a lesson assessment. The assessment
was designed to measure knowledge growth within the topic as well as the re-enforce the education.
The results are used to determine the effectiveness of each lesson. The table below contains the
average student score within each lesson assessment.
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMLESSON ASSESSMENTS
Lesson Assessment
Natural Resources 93%
Electric Energy 91%
Energy-Water Nexus 84%
Peak and Off-peak Time 83%
Electric Bill 89%
Efficiency and Conservation 91%
22
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMSTUDENT PLEDGES
As part of the program students are asked to pledge four different ways they will save energy at home.
Below is a sampling of the pledges collected:
"I pledge to save energy and
water by taking in shorter
showers."
Fatima M, Student
"I pledge to ask my mom
to make sure to clean my
clothes with cold water
instead of hot water."
Aryan H, Student
"I pledge that i will turn off
the TV when not watching
it."
Isaiah C, Student
"I pledge to save energy
by turn off computers,
monitors and games when
not in use."
Aaron A, Student
"I pledge to turn of all the
lights when I don't need to
use them anymore."
Ashley V, Student
"I pledge to close my blinds
during the summer, and
keep them open during the
winter."
Emily U, Student
"I pledge to tell my family to
save electricity."
Fernando M, Student
"I pledge to turn off lights
when they are not needed."
Katie T, Student
"Telling those around me
how they can use energy
more efficiently and
conservatively."
Camila F, Student
"I pledge to save energy by
using the LED lightbulbs
from my energy efficiency
kit."
Jaden D, Student
"I pledge to save energy by
not leaving the refrigerator
open for long."
Kristen B, Student
"I pledge to save energy
by teaching other people
to save water and use less
energy."
Samuel O, Student
23
At the conclusion of the program, students are asked to complete a survey detailing the actions they
took and which products from the Energy Efficiency Kit they install. Surveys were received from 7,720 students. The reported data can be found below.
1 Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 34.09%
Pretty good 45.46%
Neutral 13.38%
Not so great 4.35%
It was terrible 2.73%
2 Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 70.58%
No 29.42%
3 How many people (adults and children) live in your home?
5.02 People
4 Which type of fuel (energy) is used to heat water in your home?
Electricity 60.27%
Natural gas 29.13%
Propane 10.60%
I don't know 1400
5 How many showers are in your home?
2.19 Showers
6 Did you install the high efficiency showerhead from your kit?
Yes 41.13%
No, but I will install 29.54%
No 29.32%
7 What was the water flow rate from your previous showerhead?
2.15 G.P.M.
8 What was the water flow rate when you installed the new showerhead from the kit?
1.41 G.P.M.
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMSTUDENT SURVEY
24
9 Did you use the shower timer from your kit?
Yes 64.07%
No, but I will 19.86%
No 16.07%
10 Did you install the LED night light?
Yes 78.13%
No, but I will 20.68%
No 1.19%
11 When installing the night light did you replace an existing night light?
Yes 54.57%
No 45.43%
13 How many LED lightbulbs did you install?
3 31.15%0.311501
2 65.60%0.344406
1 83.82%0.182388
0 16.17%
14 What was the wattage of the first lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
39.1 Watts
15 What was the wattage of the second lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
40.1 Watts
16 What was the wattage of the third lightbulb you replaced with the LED lightbulb?
41.3 Watts
17 Did you use the digital thermometer?
Yes 49.50%
No, but I will 24.84%
No 25.66%
18 Did you raise or lower your water temperature?
Our water was the perfect temperature. We did not adjust the water heater temperature
79.05%
Our water was too hot! We lowered the water heater temperature
13.54%
Our water was not hot enough. We raised our water heater temperature.
7.41%
25
19 Did you install the furnace filter whistle?
Yes 33.21%
No, but I will 26.63%
No 40.16%
20 Did you use the sticker and magnet pack from your kit?
Yes 63.20%
No, but I will 18.28%
No 18.53%
26
At the conclusion of the unit teachers were asked to complete a post-program evaluation. Outcomes
are below:
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMTEACHER EVALUATION
1. Did you enjoy the program?
It was excellent 43.59%
It was pretty good 38.46%
Neutral 10.26%
Not so great 7.69%
It was terrible 0.00%
2. How satisfied were your students with this program?
They thought it was AWESOME! 25.64%
They liked it 53.85%
It was ok 16.67%
They really didn't like it 3.85%
3. Did this program support the education standards in your grade level?
Yes 96.15%
No 0.00%
Unsure 3.85%
4. Was the online content easy to use?
Yes 60.26%
No 39.74%
5. Was the program staff courteous?
Yes 80.77%
No 1.28%
Did not interact with program staf 17.95%
5a. Did the program staff effectively answer all of your questions?
Yes 98.41%
No 1.59%
27
6. In your opinion, were parents effectively engaged?
Yes 58.97%
No 41.03%
7. Would you like to see this program continue?
Yes 98.72%
No 1.28%
8. If offered, would you participate again next school year?
Yes 96.15%
No 3.85%
Yes 24.36%
No 35.90%
Maybe 39.74%
9. To aid in continuous improvement of the program, select teachers serve in an advisory capacity. 
Advising teachers are provided a stipend and meet twice per year. If asked, would you be willing to 
participate as an advisor?
28
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMTEACHER MINI-GRANTS
As part of the program, teachers had the opportunity to a mini-grant for classroom supplies.
Teachers that earned the mini-grant completed the following activities:
1. Completed the classroom portion of the lessons.
2. Assigned the online homework exercises.
3. Distributed the Energy Efficiency Kits to students.
4. Completed the post-program evaluation in the online teacher portal.
5. Returned the postage-paid return envelope with the following:
• Student thank-you letters
• Teacher thank-you letter on school letterhead
The mini-grant award was based on verified completion of each task above, as well as how many
students completed the student survey. The amount of the mini-grant varied depending on the
number of student surveys submitted. The awards are listed in the table below:
Student Survey
Return Rate Award Amount Number Awarded
25 to 49%$25.00 32
50 to 64%$50.00 25
65 to 79%$75.00 51
80 to 100%$100.00 103
*Detailed award information can be found in the Student
Energy Efficiency Kit Program dashboard.
29
In addition to successful implementation of the Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program, Tinker LLC
evaluates program outcomes in an effort to continually improve the program. Areas to be enhanced
are identified below:
Content. As identified in this report, students successfully completed the lessons which resulted in a
net knowledge gain. During school year 2022-2023, Tinker LLC plans to enhance the content through:1. The redesign of some lessons and minor updates to others. This includes designing unique Electric
Bill lessons for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students.2. Offer teachers the option to receive paper copies of the Student Survey during the enrollment
process.3. Review lesson length for lower grade levels.
Teacher Program Administration. Based on feedback from particiating teachers, Tinker LLC plans to
enhance the following teacher administration tools:
1. Integrate the seemless google login feature for teachers and students. This will allow teachers and
students to use a single school login to access the google suite of digital tools and the Web App.
2. For teachers without google classroom, Tinker will normalize the student username across all classes.
3. Upgrade the student tracking and reporting module in the teacher portal.
These enhancements will improve the program while continuing to meet the changing needs of educators and students. Ultimately these will result in increased knowledge leading to the adoption of
sustainable habits as well as responsible energy use amongst program participants.
Phase 3: Reporting
STUDENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIT PROGRAMCONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
30
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs (Exact Numbers Reported)
Average household size: 5.02 people
Showers per home:2.19 showers
Previous showerhead flow rate:2.15 gallons
Retrofit showerhead flow rate:1.41 gallons
Percent of homes with electric water heat:60.27%
Percent of homes with natural gas water heat:29.13%
Retrofit showerhead installation rate:41.13%
Participants using kits:12,257 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Showers per day per person:0.67 showers1
Average length of use:8.2 minutes1
Percent of showerhead water that is heated:73%hot water1
Temperature of incoming cold water:55°1
Temperature of outgoing hot water:120°1
Product life:10 years2
Outcomes
Projected annual water savings for all households:17,259,184.93 Gallons1
Projected annual electric savings for all households:1,366,788.76 kWh4
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households:33,030.73 Therms5
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:1,144.00 Metric Tons3
Projected lifetime water savings for all households:172,591,849.33 Gallons1
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:13,667,887.57 kWh1
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households:330,307.28 Therms1
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:11,434.00 Metric Tons3
31
SHOWERHEAD RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Step 1
*Equation is divided by full bathrooms per home because we only provide one showerhead
Step 2 gallons saved per day x 365 days = gallons saved per year
Step 3
2 Manufacturer
5 WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010, Appendix A: Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o Therms Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 65º F
[(1.0 Btu/lbs x º F) (1 Therm/99,976 Btus) / (1 gal/8.34 lbs) x 65º F] / 0.60 = 0.009 Therms/gal
1 WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010, Appendix A: Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
gallons saved per year x retrofit showerhead installation rate x participants = gallons saved per year program-
wide
[(Previous showerhead flow rate - Retrofit showerhead flow rate) x Average length of use: 8.2min x Showers
per day per person: 0.67 x Average household size] ÷ Full bathrooms per home = gallons saved per day
3 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2022,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
4 WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. EPA, 2010, Appendix A: Calculations and Key
Assumptions. Note:
o KWh Required to Raise 1 Gallon of Water 65º F
[(1.0 Btu/lbs x º F) (1kWh/3,412 Btus) / (1 gal/8.34 lbs) x 65º F] / 0.90 = 0.18 kWh/gal
32
LED LIGHTBULB #1 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate:83.82%
Participants using kits:12,257 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:39.13 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb:1,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:8 watts2
Hours of operation per day:2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:245,155.71 kWh4
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:174 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:319,837.84 kWh6
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:227 Metric Tons5
2 Manufacturer
3 "Regional Technical Forum." ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Wa . 250 to 1049 lumens. An - Res. Onl4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days] ÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2022,
htt s:www.e a.ov ener reenhouse-as-e uivalencies-calculator.
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
6 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
33
LED LIGHTBULB #2 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate:65.60%
Participants using kits:12,257 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:40.09 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb:1,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:8 watts2
Hours of operation per day:2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:197,770.63 kWh4
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:140 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:258,017.79 kWh6
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:183 Metric Tons5
2 Manufacturer
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
3 "Regional Technical Forum." ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Wa . 250 to 1049 lumens. An - Res. Onl4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days] ÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2022,
htt s:www.e a.ov ener reenhouse-as-e uivalencies-calculator.6 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
34
LED LIGHTBULB #3 RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate:31.15%
Participants using kits:12,257 Kits
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:41.25 watts
Assumed Inputs
Remaining useful life of replaced bulb:1,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:8 watts2
Hours of operation per day:2.1 hours per day3
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:97,323.34 kWh4
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:69 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:126,971.09 kWh6
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:90 Metric Tons5
2 Manufacturer
1 Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is 1/3 of useful life. Average Halogen useful life is 3,000 hours. Thus RUL is 1000
hours. (https://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx)
3 "Regional Technical Forum." ResidentialLighting-v10-0. Lamps_StorageRemoval. General Purpose and Three
Wa . 250 to 1049 lumens. An - Res. Onl4{[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365
Days] ÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED light bulb installation rate
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2022,
htt s:www.e a.ov ener reenhouse-as-e uivalencies-calculator.6 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Remaining useful life of replaced bulb]
35
LED NIGHT LIGHT RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Retrofit LED night light installation rate:78.13%
Participants using kits:12,257 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Product life:8 years1
Watts used by the LED night light:0.5 watts1
Average length of use:4380 hours per year
Average watts used by the replaced bulb:4 watts1
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:146,814.98 kWh3
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:104 Metric Tons4
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:1,174,519.85 kWh3
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:832 Metric Tons4
1 Manufacturer
3 {[(Average wattage of light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED night light) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days]
÷ 1,000} x Participants using kits x Retrofit LED night light installation rate
4 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2022,
htt s:www.e a.ov ener reenhouse-as-e uivalencies-calculator.
36
FILTER WHISTLE RETROFIT
Student Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX A
Reported Inputs
Filter Whistle installation rate:33.21%
Participants using kits:12,257 Kits
Assumed Inputs
Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner:4467 kWh1
Percent of customers with central air conditioning or heat pump:78.8%2
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace 421 therms1
Percent of customers using gas heat:58.0%2
Projected increase in efficiency (electricity):1.75%3
Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas):0.92%3
Product life:10 years4
Outcomes
Projected annual electric savings for all households:250,763.96 kWh
Projected annual natural gas savings for all households:9,144.98 Therms
Projected annual GHG reduction for all households:226.4 Metric Tons5
Projected lifetime electric savings for all households:2,507,639.63 kWh
Projected lifetime natural gas savings for all households:91,449.81 Therms
Projected lifetime GHG reduction for all households:2,261 Metric Tons5
2 Idaho Power's 2022 Residential End-Use Study
3 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the Filter Restriction Alarm.
4 Provided by manufacturer.
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Web site:
http://www.eia.gov/
5 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, June. 2022,
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
37
TEACHER KIT SAVINGS
Teacher Energy Efficiency Kit Projected Savings
APPENDIX B
No. of Years
Participating
Student Kit
Savings
Savings Percentage
Applied
Number of
Teachers
Total Annual
Savings
1 188.02 kWh 100%136 25,571.34 kWh
2 188.02 kWh 75%75 10,576.38 kWh
3 188.02 kWh 50%56 5,264.69 kWh
4 188.02 kWh 25%71 3,337.44 kWh
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of
Teachers = Total Annual Savings Total:44,749.85 kWh
No. of Years
Participating
Student Kit
Savings
Savings Percentage
Applied
Number of
Teachers
Total Annual
Savings
1 3.44 Therms 100%136 467.97 Therms
2 3.44 Therms 75%75 193.55 Therms
3 3.44 Therms 50%56 96.35 Therms
4 3.44 Therms 25%71 61.08 Therms
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Teachers = Total Annual Savings Total:818.95 Therms
No. of Years
Participating
Student Kit
Savings
Savings Percentage
Applied
Number of
Teachers
Total Annual
Savings
1 1,408.11 Gals 100%136 191,502.75 Gals
2 1,408.11 Gals 75%75 79,206.10 Gals
3 1,408.11 Gals 50%56 39,427.04 Gals
4 1,408.11 Gals 25%71 24,993.92 Gals
Student Kit Savings x Savings Percentage Applied x Number of Teachers = Total Annual Savings Total: 335,129.80 Gals
Total Annual
Savings
No. of Teacher
Kits Distributed
Average Annual
Savings per Kit
44,749.85 kWh 338 kits 132.40 kWh
818.95 Therms 338 kits 2.42 therms
335,129.80 Gals 338 kits 991.51 Gals
Total Annual Savings ÷ No. of Teacher Kits Distributed = Average Annual Savings per Kit
38
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Adams Elementary 1 50 51
Capital ID Amity Elementary School 3 74 77
Capital ID Andrus Elementary 1 27 28
Capital ID Basin Elementary School 1 30 31
Capital ID Chaparral Elementary 1 27 28
Capital ID Christine Donnell School of the Arts 1 76 77
Capital ID Desert Sage Elementary 1 31 32
Capital ID Discovery Elementary 3 70 73
Capital ID Eagle Hills Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID Falcon Ridge Charter 1 34 35
Capital ID Future Public School 2 105 107
Capital ID Galileo STEM Academy 3 93 96
Capital ID Garfield Elementary 1 26 27
Capital ID Glenns Ferry Elementary School 2 37 39
Capital ID Grace Jordan Elementary School 3 68 71
Capital ID Hacker Middle School 10 266 276
Capital ID Heritage Middle School 1 180 181
Capital ID Hidden Springs Elementary 2 47 49
Capital ID Highlands Elementary School 2 46 48
Capital ID Hillcrest Elementary School 1 19 20
Capital ID Hillsdale Elementary School 4 108 112
Capital ID Home School 1 2 3
Capital ID Horizon Elementary 1 30 31
39
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Hunter Elementary 4 100 104
Capital ID Joplin Elementary 2 56 58
Capital ID Koelsch Elementary 1 25 26
Capital ID Lake Hazel Elementary 3 77 80
Capital ID Liberty Elementary 2 55 57
Capital ID Longfellow Elementary School 1 28 29
Capital ID Mary McPherson Elementary 1 26 27
Capital ID Meridian Middle School 1 155 156
Capital ID Monroe Elementary 1 21 22
Capital ID Morley Nelson Elementary School 2 62 64
Capital ID North Elementary School 3 79 82
Capital ID Owyhee Elementary 1 18 19
Capital ID Peregrine Elementary 2 101 103
Capital ID Ponderosa Elementary 3 93 96
Capital ID Raising Arrows Academy 1 4 5
Capital ID Reed Elementary School 7 159 166
Capital ID Rimrock Jr./Sr. High 1 20 21
Capital ID Riverside Elementary School 1 26 27
Capital ID Riverstone International School 1 33 34
Capital ID Roosevelt Elementary 1 50 51
Capital ID Rose Hill Montessori 1 11 12
Capital ID Ross Elementary 2 59 61
Capital ID Sacred Heart Catholic School 1 17 18
40
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Capital ID Sawtooth Elementary School 1 145 146
Capital ID Sawtooth Middle School 1 115 116
Capital ID Seven Oaks Elementary 3 105 108
Capital ID Shadow Hills Elementary School 3 78 81
Capital ID Silver Sage Elementary School 1 50 51
Capital ID Silver Trail Elementary 4 86 90
Capital ID Spalding Elementary 1 30 31
Capital ID Spalding STEM Academy 2 59 61
Capital ID Star Elementary 4 117 121
Capital ID Summerwind STEM Academy 3 69 72
Capital ID Valley View Elementary School 4 45 49
Capital ID Washington Elementary School 2 21 23
Capital ID West Elementary School 3 79 82
Capital ID White Pine Elementary School 3 72 75
Capital ID Whitney Elementary School 3 75 78
Capital ID Whittier Elementary School 1 30 31
Total:129 3922 4051
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Capital Region
APPENDIX C
42
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Birch Elementary 5 116 121
Canyon ID Centennial Elementary 3 79 82
Canyon ID Central Canyon Elementary School 3 83 86
Canyon ID Central Elementary 2 45 47
Canyon ID Desert Springs Elementary 4 106 110
Canyon ID East Canyon Elementary School 1 112 113
Canyon ID Fremont Middle School 1 120 121
Canyon ID Gem Prep Nampa 2 72 74
Canyon ID Heights Elementary 1 105 106
Canyon ID Heritage Community Charter 1 65 66
Canyon ID Kuna Middle School 1 152 153
Canyon ID Lewis and Clark Elementary School 3 70 73
Canyon ID Melba Elementary 3 75 78
Canyon ID Middleton Middle School 2 290 292
Canyon ID Mill Creek Elementary 5 135 140
Canyon ID Mosaics Public School 1 47 48
Canyon ID Owyhee Elementary 2 55 57
Canyon ID Park Ridge Elementary 2 50 52
Canyon ID Purple Sage Elementary 3 71 74
Canyon ID Ronald Reagan Elementary 3 82 85
Canyon ID Sacajawea Elementary School 3 84 87
Canyon ID South Middle School 2 375 377
Canyon ID St Pauls Catholic School 1 17 18
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
APPENDIX C
43
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Canyon Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Canyon ID Thomas Jefferson Charter School 1 33 34
Canyon ID Vallivue Middle School 1 145 146
Canyon ID Van Buren Elementary 1 24 25
Canyon ID Washington Elementary School 1 30 31
Canyon ID West Canyon Elementary School 3 74 77
Canyon ID Wilder Elementary 1 21 22
Canyon ID Wilson Elementary School 3 64 67
Total:65 2797 2862
APPENDIX C
44
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Aberdeen Middle School 1 55 56
Eastern ID Alameda Middle School 1 91 92
Eastern ID American Falls Academy 1 12 13
Eastern ID Chief Tahgee Elementary Academy 1 15 16
Eastern ID Chubbuck Elementary School 1 82 83
Eastern ID CONNOR ACADEMY 2 64 66
Eastern ID Donald D. Stalker Elementary 2 36 38
Eastern ID Fort Hall Elementary 1 24 25
Eastern ID Franklin Middle School 2 174 176
Eastern ID Gem Prep Pocatello 1 50 51
Eastern ID Greenacres Elementary School 2 65 67
Eastern ID Groveland Elementary 2 43 45
Eastern ID Hawthorne Middle School 1 44 45
Eastern ID Holy Spirit Catholic School 1 15 16
Eastern ID I.T Stoddard 1 30 31
Eastern ID Idaho Science and Technology 1 22 23
Eastern ID Inkom Elementary School 2 27 29
Eastern ID Leadore School 1 20 21
Eastern ID Lewis and Clark Elementary 3 80 83
Eastern ID Pocatello Community Charter 1 74 75
Eastern ID Ridge Crest Elementary 2 46 48
Eastern ID Rockland School 1 20 21
Eastern ID Rulon M Ellis Elementary School 3 72 75
APPENDIX C
45
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Eastern Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Eastern ID Salmon Pioneer Elementary School 1 42 43
Eastern ID Syringa Elementary School 3 83 86
Eastern ID Tendoy Elementary School 1 30 31
Eastern ID Tyhee Elementary School 4 111 115
Eastern ID William Thomas Middle School 1 115 116
Total:44 1,542 1,586
46
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID Acorn Learning Center 1 9 10
Southern ID BUHL MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 100 101
Southern ID Camas County Schools 1 25 26
Southern ID Carey School 1 19 20
Southern ID Dietrich Schools 1 13 14
Southern ID Downey Elementary 1 13 14
Southern ID Ernest Hemingway Steam School 1 25 26
Southern ID Filer Intermediate School 3 70 73
Southern ID Hagerman Elementary School 1 31 32
Southern ID Hailey Elementary School 3 58 61
Southern ID Harrison Elementary School 2 52 54
Southern ID Hollister Elementary School 2 20 22
Southern ID I.B. Perrine Elementary 3 71 74
Southern ID Immanuel Lutheran School 1 16 17
Southern ID Jerome Middle School 2 330 332
Southern ID Oakley Elementary 1 34 35
Southern ID Popplewell Elementary School 2 145 147
Southern ID Robert Stuart Middle School 3 359 362
Southern ID Rock Creek Elementary School 2 139 141
Southern ID Sawtooth Elementary School 1 29 30
Southern ID Shoshone Elementary 2 40 42
Southern ID South Hills Middle School 1 240 241
Southern ID St Edwards Catholic School 1 13 14
APPENDIX C
47
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Southern Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Southern ID Stricker Elementary 1 21 22
Southern ID Summit Elementary 11 266 277
Southern ID Vera C. O'Leary Middle School 1 105 106
Southern ID West Minico Middle School 2 202 204
Southern ID Wood River Middle School 2 175 177
Total:54 2620 2674
48
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western ID Cambridge Elementary 1 12 13
Western ID Cascade Elementary School 1 18 19
Western ID Fruitland Elementary School 5 138 143
Western ID Fruitland Middle School 1 20 21
Western ID Horseshoe Bend Elementary School 1 11 12
Western ID Kenneth J. Carberry Elementary 4 117 121
Western ID McCain Middle School 1 125 126
Western ID New Plymouth Elementary 3 74 77
Western ID Ola Elementary School 1 10 11
Western ID Park School 4 105 109
Western ID Parma Middle School 1 80 81
Western ID Payette Lakes Middle School 1 105 106
Western ID Weiser Middle School 1 101 102
Western ID Westside Elementary School 4 103 107
Total:29 1,019 1,048
APPENDIX C
49
PARTICIPATION TABLE
Western Region
APPENDIX C
Region State School Teachers Students Total
Western OR Adrian Elementary 1 24 25
Western OR Annex Charter School 1 16 17
Western OR Harper Charter School 1 19 20
Western OR Henry L. Slater Elementary School 3 62 65
Western OR Huntington School 1 11 12
Western OR May Roberts Elementary School 2 49 51
Western OR Nyssa Elementary School 2 43 45
Western OR Pioneer Elementary School 1 17 18
Western OR St Peter Catholic School 1 40 41
Western OR Vale Elementary 3 55 58
Western OR Willowcreek Elementary School 1 21 22
Total:17 357 374
50
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX D
51
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX C
52
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX D
53
PARTICIPANT LETTERS
Teacher Letters
APPENDIX C
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 1 of 45
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 5
1. Project Overview 5
2. 2022: Summary of Results and Findings 7
3. 3. Program Attrition 10
1. Program Overview 14
1.1 Team Structure 14
1.2 Objectives 14
1.2.1 2022 Objectives 14
1.2.2 Additional Objectives 14
1.3 Eligibility Screening 14
1.3.1 Eligibility Screening 15
1.4 Evaluation, Measurement & Verification Process 16
1.5 Customer Data Acquisition/Integration 17
1.6 Benchmarking Flags 20
1.7 Improving Tip Selection 21
4. 1.6.1 Enhanced Water Heater Tips 21
5. 1.6.2 Overview of segmentation used for 2022 21
2. 2022 Program Results Detail 22
2.1 Objectives: Findings 22
2.1.1 Energy Savings 22
2.1.2 Monthly Savings by Treatment Group 24
2.1.3 2022 Combined Savings for Expansion participants (T6) Vs. Pilot Participants (T1234) 24
2.2 Email Reports 25
2.2.1 Delivery, Open, and Bounce Rates 25
2.3 Customer Feedback 25
2.3.1 Customer Service Line Calls and Opt-Out Rates 25
2.4 Additional Metrics 29
2.4.1 Microsite Engagement 29
2.4.2 My Account Web Activity 30
2.4.3 Attrition Rate Detail 31
3. Process Improvements, Lessons Learned, and Future Considerations 33
3.1 Process Improvements 33
3.2 Lessons Learned 34
3.3 Future Considerations 35
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 2 of 45
4. Appendices 37
4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports 37
4.2 Appendix B: Quarterly Program Monitoring Reports 45
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 3 of 45
Revision History
Date Version Description Author/Editor
2-27-2023 1.0 Initial Draft Thea Winch
3-3-2023 1.1 Additional edits/comments Thea Winch
3-9-2023 1.2 Final Version Thea Winch
1.3 Additional edits/comments
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 2022 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 4 of 45
1. Executive Summary
1. P ROJECT O VERVIEW
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.
Filters applied to identify customers who may participate in the program are based on
recommendations from the vendor, as well as Idaho Power’s experience and pilot learnings. Due to
Oregon’s small customer base, Idaho Power’s (IPC) HER program is currently available only in Idaho.
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. Customers in the treatment group but not in program group remain in the
treatment group to maintain the RCT but are not actively treated for a variety of reasons discussed
later in the report.
Customers in the evaluation group are broken into treatment and corresponding control groups. T1
through T5 were onboarded in 2017 and 2018 as part of the pilot. T6 became active in 2020.
● 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
● T5: customers with low year-round energy use added in Year One.
o Note: these customers were removed from the program in 2020 and received their last
report in February of 2020
● T6: expansion customers based on eligibility criteria determined after the pilot
The table below shows the number of customers in the treatment, control, and program groups at
the beginning and end of 2022. Customers are removed from both groups when they move out .
Table 1: 2022 RCT and Program Group Participant Counts
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 5 of 45
Program Control Treatment
Jan 1 Dec 31 Net
Diff
Jan 1 Dec 31 Net
Diff
Jan 1 Dec 31 Net
Diff
T1 4,664 4,398 266 1,257 1,186 71 5,094 4,730 364
T2 3,865 3,670 195 710 664 46 4,429 4,154 275
T3 4,861 4,610 251 3,073 2,881 192 5,174 4,837 337
T4 2,274 2,164 110 2,277 2,135 142 2,426 2,272 154
T5* 48,081 45,295 2,786 4,149 3,915 234
T6 89,162 83,674 5,488 12,493 11,477 1,016 91,817 84,772 7,045
Combined
Total
104,826 98,516 6,310 67,891 63,638 4,253 113,089 104,680 8,409
*T5 stopped receiving reports in 2020 so they are no longer in the Program Group. Residual savings from
T5 are still calculated for the PSR, so Treatment and Control counts are still tracked.
The Home Energy Reports included the following elements:
● Customer information: customer
name, address, and account
number
● Household energy-usage
disaggregation: home usage
separated into four loads (heating,
air conditioning, lights & appliances,
and always-on)
● Targeted message(s) : customized
messaging to drive customers to
relevant programs and the My
Account portal
● Social benchmarks : customer’s
home energy use compared to
similar homes and efficient homes, designed to motivate savings
● Personalized savings recommendations: Tips for saving energy based on home
profile attributes, customer segmentation, and season
Table 2 – 2022 Report Delivery Schedule by Cohort
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 6 of 45
2. 2022: S UMMARY OF R ESULTS AND F INDINGS
Main takeaways from 2022 are as follows.
Savings
In 2022, total savings calculated are 20,474,995 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 2022 savings from this program are 20,734,611 kWh.
Using a weighted average calculation without T5 residual savings factored in, the treatment groups
saved 1.31% or 200.74 kWh per customer. With residual savings from T5 included, the weighted
average savings for all treatment groups was 195.77 per customer or 1.30%. Table 3: 2022 Program
Savings by T-Groups
Cohort
Average Energy
Savings in kWh per
Customer
Cumulative Savings
(all months, all
households, kWh)
Percent
Savings
Statistical
Significance
 T1 162.77 781,761 0.71% N
T2 56.71 238,339 0.26% N
T3 227.70 1,113,894 1.49% Y
T4 267.44 612,969 2.47% Y
T5 66.31 259,616 0.89% N
T6 206.61 17,728,033 1.35% Y
Combined
Groups 195.77 20,734,611 1.3% Y
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 7 of 45
Table 4: 2022 Home Energy Reports Delivered in 2022
Report
Cycle Recipients
# of Email
only
Recipients
# of Paper
Only
Recipients
# of Both
Email &
Paper
Recipients
# of
Unique
Customers
Receiving
HERs
Total
Reports
Delivered
February T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6 150 104,676 N/A 104,826 104,826
May T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6 150 102,828 N/A 102,978 102,978
August T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6 153 47,766 52,801 100,720 153,521
November T1, T2, T3,
T4, T6 125 52,747 45,769 98,641 144,410
2022 Report Totals 578 308,017 98,570 N/A 505,735
2022 Participants 104,826
Notes on Table 4:
● In August of 2022 we expanded email HERs (eHERs) to all customers with an email address.
● Prior to the eHER expansion, only customers that opted into email and out of paper were eligible
to receive email reports. This is why there were no customers receiving email and paper reports
prior to August 2021.
● For the purposes of calculating cost effectiveness, the participant count will include customers
who receive at least one report during the calendar year. This is typically based on the number of
reports sent in the first report cycle of the year. For 2022, the participant count will be 104,826.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 8 of 45
Table 5: Year-Over-Year Home Energy Reports Delivered
Program
Year Recipients Email Only
Reports Sent
Paper Only
Reports Sent
Both Paper
and Email
Reports Sent
# of Program
Participants
Year 1 of
Pilot
(2017-2018)
T1, T3, T4, T5 N/A 149,546 N/A 23,914
Year 2 of
Pilot
(2018-2019)
T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5 N/A 116,087 N/A 24,976
2020 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5, T6 257 488,545 N/A 127,313
2021 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T6 507 445,334 N/A 115,153
2022 T1, T2, T3, T4,
T6 578 406,587 98,570 104,826
Total
Reports
Delivered
N/A 1,342 1,718,002 98,570 N/A
Notes on Table 5:
● T2 was launched in 2018
● Email reports launched at the beginning of 2019
● T5 was discontinued in 2020. The last report they received was in February 2020
● T6 launched in May of 2020 and customers received first report in June of 2020
● IPC pulled Total Reports Delivered data for Year 1 of Pilot (2017-2018) and Year 2 (2018-2019)
● Uplight pulled Total Reports Delivered Data for 2020, 2021, and 2022
Email HER-Specific Statistics
In 2022, 99,148 total emails were sent. Of those, 97,971 emails were successfully delivered, and a
total of 49,617 were opened. This is a 51% open rate which is stronger than average. The total
clickthrough rate (that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails) was 2.47%.
Customer Calls fielded by IPC’s Customer Solutions Advisors
The total number of customer calls has steadily decreased from the peak in 2020 when T6 was
launched. In 2022 there was a 38% decrease in the total number of calls compared to 2021. The
reduction in 2022 is especially notable since the number of eHERs being sent increased significantly
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 9 of 45
when eHERs were expanded to all eligible customers in the Program Group. The expansion
increased the number of eHERs sent from 507 in 2021 to 99,148 in 2022.
Table 6: Year-Over-Year Customer Calls
Year 1 of Pilot
(2017-2018)
Year 2 of
Pilot
(2018-2019)
2020 2021 2022
Total Calls* 411 246 1,087 660 409
Total Reports
Delivered 149,546 116,087 448,802 445,841 505,735
% to # of reports
delivered 0.27% 0.21% 0.24% 0.15% 0.08%
Notes on Table 6:
● IPC pulled Total Reports Delivered data for Year 1 of Pilot (2017-2018) and Year 2 (2018-2019)
● Uplight pulled Total Reports Delivered Data for 2020, 2021, and 2022
3. 3. P ROGRAM A TTRITION
Attrition Rates
Attrition rate measures the number of people removed from the HER program, either due to not
meeting program requirements (as specified below), or because participants chose to opt out. The
permanent attrition rate in 2022 was 6.92% with 9,334 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 2021 when permanent attrition rate was 7.82%
with 10,546 customers either opting out or being permanently removed, and from 2020 when
permanent attrition rate was 9.4% with 11,850 customers either opting out or being permanently
removed.
Permanent removals affect the Evaluation Group (both treatment and control). Customers who
opt-out of the program no longer receive reports (no longer part of the program group), but their
data remain as part of the evaluation group to maintain the balance of the RCT.
*Customers with zip codes outside of the geographic parameters for similar home comparrisons, or
those catgorized as insufficient location benchmarking, are verified as incompatible location.
**Pilot customers whose home types are single family home or manufactured home are eligible to
receive reports. For T6, only customers whose home type is single family home are eligible to receive
reports. All other home types are considered incompatible property type.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 10 of 45
Table 7: 2022 Attrition Summary
Permanent Removals Opt-Outs
Count % Count %
T1234 1,170 4.44% 17 0.07%
T6 8,058 7.42% 89 0.08%
Combined 9,228 6.84% 106 0.08%
Overall
Attrition Rate 6.92%
Table 8: Year Over Year Attrition
Opt Out Count Opt Out % Overall
Attrition %
2018 172 0.64% 12%
2019 66 0.22% 15.15%
2020 154 0.1% 9.4%
2021 138 0.12% 7.8%
2022 106 .08% 6.92%
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 11 of 45
Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
Table 9: Year Over Year Savings Comparisons
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Aggregate
Savings in
kWh
Partici
pant
Count
2018 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N/A 3,281,780 23,914
2019 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N/A 8,444,746 24,976
2020 1,445,666 1,734,800 1,237,313 881,080 67,831 5,017,703 10,427,940 127,138
2021 183,325 981,868 1,378,427 740,448 100,575 13,382,802 16,767,446 115,153
2022 781,761 238,339 1,113,894 612,969 259,616 17,728,033 20,734,611 104,826
Aggregate
Savings in
MWh
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 59,656 N/A
Notes on Table 9:
● 2018-2019 savings and participant counts were sourced from IPC’s DSM Reports and/or Pilot
Program Summary Reports (PSR). Only the aggregate savings for T1 - T5 were pulled.
● T5 transitioned to residual savings starting from March 2020.
● T6 launched in 2020.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 12 of 45
Figure 1: Yearly Aggregate Savings 2020-2022
Note on Figure 1: T5 savings are present in the chart. The savings are so small in comparison to T6 that
they aren’t visible.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 13 of 45
1. Program Overview
1.1 Team Structure
The IPC Home Energy Report program has been a joint effort between Idaho Power Company,
Utility Consumer Analytics | N. 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 2022 O BJECTIVES
The following business requirements were captured during an onsite meeting on August 22, 2019
and documented in the contract as part of 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 A DDITIONAL O BJECTIVES
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.
IPC is working with their third party consultant to identify an appropriate trigger to stop including
T5 savings in the aggregate yearly savings estimate.
1.3 Eligibility Screening
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 14 of 45
1.3.1 E LIGIBILITY S CREENING
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)
randomly removed 29,369 customers from the control groups for Pilot waves 1, 2, 3, and 4 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 are Shown in Table 9
The criteria for culling customers during eligibility screening is shown in Table 9.
In late 2020, an issue arose where the benchmarking group for a number of treatment customers
fell below the required threshold of 100 homes. Although adequate benchmarking was part of the
initial criteria, the size for the benchmarking group during eligibility screening had been set too low.
This issue created a situation where customers remaining in the program could potentially receive
sporadic reports and have a negative customer experience. As a result, the vendor and IPC made a
joint decision to remove participants with inadequate benchmarks from active treatment. At this
time, the vendor also confirmed those customers remaining in treatment had enough homes in
their respective benchmarking groups to provide quality data for subsequent reporting periods.
Table 11: Criteria and Rationale for Culling Customers During Eligibility Screening
[removed table for public version]
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 15 of 45
Figure 2: Eligibility Funnel for 2020 Expansion
[removed table for public version]
1.4 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.
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 rI’m esult 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.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 16 of 45
2020 Expansion
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 pilot participants eligible for treatment in year three. The following changes were
made to the pilot 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.
3. The C5 control group was removed from eligibility for treatment.
The following changes were made to the pilot 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 12: Reduction in Pilot 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.
1.5 Customer Data Acquisition/Integration
In the 2022 Program year, there were two improvements made to the program’s data
acquisition/integration. The first is the quarterly incorporation of updated Do Not Contact (DNC)
lists. This was done as part of the eHER expansion effort in August of 2022. IPC provides an updated
DNC list once a quarter before eHERs go out. Uplight then cross-references the DNC list with the
eHER mailing list and removes any customers that appear on both lists. This ensures that Program
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 17 of 45
Group customers who ask to be added to Idaho Power’s DNC list are not receiving emails they do
not want.
The second improvement is the addition of a “hot water heater likely” flag. IPC had collected data
on customers likely to have electric hot water heaters. IPC sent the data they collected to Uplight,
who then used it to supplement My Account's electric water heater data. Below is the method
Uplight used for prioritizing the hot water heater data.
1. If there is no water heater data from My Account for a customer, and there is no data in the
“hot water heater likely” file from Idaho Power, leave it blank.
2. If there is no data from My Account for a customer, but there is data in the “hot water
heater likely” file from Idaho Power, use the hot water heater data from Idaho Power.
3. If there is water heater data from My Account but no data in the “hot water heater likely” file
from Idaho Power, use the hot water heater data from My Account.
4. If there is water heater data from My Account and data in the “hot water heater likely” file
from Idaho Power, prioritize the hot water heater data from My Account.
With the hot water heater flag incorporated, enhanced segmentation for customers with and
without electric water heaters became possible. In November 2022, we used the new flag to
provide money and electricity-saving water tips to customers likely to have electric hot water
heaters.
To further improve the data and process for future segmentation, Uplight plans to upload the “hot
water heater likely” flag directly to My Account using the above-mentioned prioritization. This will
not only improve customers’ Profiles in My Account, but will allow Uplight to use the existing My
Account data export, rather than an ad-hoc process.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 18 of 45
Table 13: 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 samples for
benchmarking.
CSV
batch:
one-time
historical
(performed
year one)
Aclara Aclara
Electric
Customer-Bill
ing 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-AM
I 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
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 19 of 45
[NEW] Do Not
Contact
(DNC) List
Starting with the August 2022
cycle, Idaho Power provides an
updated DNC list once a
quarter - prior to reports being
sent. Uplight removes
customers on the DNC list
from the eHER mailing list.
CSV recurring
quarterly
Idaho
Power Uplight
[NEW] Hot
Water “likely
list”
Idaho Power provided account
numbers for customers that
are likely to have electric hot
water heaters. This data was
then used to provide targeted
water usage tips for customers
that are likely to have hot
water heaters.
CSV
one-time
(performed in
November
2022 as part of
the eHER
expansion)
Idaho
Power Uplight
1.6 Benchmarking Flags
Benchmarking flags are used to cluster customers based on similar home properties for the
purpose of calculating peer comparisons and identifying how each treatment customer’s usage
compares to the average and efficient homes of similar properties. In the pilot program, the flags
used to identify benchmarking clusters were 1) Home Size (square feet), 2) Home Type, and 3)
County. In the 2020 expansion, two additional flags were added, one for ESH and one for AC.
Figure 3 - Peer Comparison Section
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 20 of 45
1.7 Improving Tip Selection
4. 1.6.1 E NHANCED W ATER H EATER T IPS
5. 1.6.2 O VERVIEW OF SEGMENTATION USED FOR 2022
Idaho Power and Uplight are always on the lookout for new ways to keep report messaging
personalized and fresh. This is good way to drive additional customer engagement with intent of
increasing program savings and participation. In 2022 the segmentation in Table 14 was used.
Table 14: Segmentation Used for 2022 Quarterly Home Energy Reports
Report Cycle Segmentation
February Electrical Space Heating/Appliances and lights
May Air conditioning/Appliances and lights
August Air conditioning/Always on
November Electrical Space Heating/Appliances and lights/Hot water
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 21 of 45
2. 2022 Program Results Detail
2.1 Objectives: Findings
2.1.1 E NERGY S AVINGS
Cumulative Savings During Treatment Period
In total, we saw an average of 200.74 kWh savings per treatment customer. This added up to a total
combined savings of 20,474,995 kWh across all treatment groups as of December 31, 2022. 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 2022,
including the T5 post-treatment period, showed a total combined savings of 20,734,611 kWh and an
average savings of 195.77 kWh per customer . 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, the decision was made to continue including IO6 customers in our Evaluation Group for
yearly reporting.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 22 of 45
Table 15: 2022 Cumulative Savings Active by Cohort
T12346 Treatment Period: Jan 1, 2022 - Dec 31, 2022
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
Savings
Percent 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 162.77 0.71% 375.569 0.197821 781,761
Winter
Heating – T2 56.71 0.26% 429.37 0.397873 238,339
Year-Round -
T3 227.70 1.49% 209.78 0.00166919 1,113,894
Year-Round -
T4 267.44 2.47% 188.10 0.002662 612,969
Expansion - T6 206.61 1.35% 71.38 7.00829E-09 17,728,033
Combined 200.74 1.31% 27.28 1.81872E-47 20,474,995
Table 16: 2022 Cumulative Savings by T5 (inactive Cohort)
T5 Persistent Period: Jan 1, 2022 - Dec 31, 2022
Cohort
Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer w/
IO6
Average
Savings
Percent w/
IO6
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings
(kWh) w/ IO6
Year-Round -
T5 66.31 0.89% 259,616
Table 17: 2022 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
T123456 195.77 1.30% 20,734,611
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 23 of 45
2.1.2 M ONTHLY S AVINGS BY T REATMENT G ROUP
Table 18: Average kWh Savings per Cohort
T1 T2 T3 T4 T6
Jan 2022 -11.37 -8.79 -19.17 -33.16 -16.78
Feb 2022 -26.13 -8.86 -16.42 -31.66 -18.64
Mar 2022 13.19 -23.22 -19.02 -30.32 -13.30
Apr 2022 44.06 -15.70 -12.51 -27.24 -10.15
May 2022 -4.36 -22.75 -16.99 -20.70 -9.78
Jun 2022 -13.22 1.46 -19.79 -16.07 -13.29
Jul 2022 -6.20 -18.41 -29.04 -22.82 -15.15
Aug 2022 -10.39 -5.11 -21.58 -25.87 -14.40
Sep 2022 -7.79 4.77 -16.59 -15.47 -16.06
Oct 2022 -6.69 8.63 -13.68 -11.01 -11.37
Nov 2022 11.68 19.46 -23.58 -21.77 -17.83
Dec 2022 -3.35 -4.07 -29.28 -38.09 -18.44
2.1.3 2022 C OMBINED S AVINGS FOR E XPANSION PARTICIPANTS (T6) V S . P ILOT P ARTICIPANTS (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. Savings for T6 have ramped up and are performing well.
An analysis of savings within the expansion participant group (T6), compared to the pilot customer
group, found that in 2022, T6 saved an average of 206.61 kWh per customer. T3 and T4 continue to
outperform T6, while T1 and T2 have underperformed. In aggregate, the active pilot cohorts saved
an average of 169.67 kWh per customer and T5 had a residual average savings of 66.31 kWh per
customer. The combined average savings for T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 was 195.77 kWh per
customer.
2022 was the second full year where all waves were on the same report schedule, and thus, we are
beginning to look at the program group more holistically.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 24 of 45
2.2 Email Reports
2.2.1 D ELIVERY , O PEN , AND B OUNCE R ATES
In 2022, a total of 99,148 email reports had been sent to Idaho customers and seeds (i.e., IPC
employees receiving an eHER to evaluate it). Of these, 97,971 emails were successfully delivered,
and a total of 49,617 were opened. This is a 51% open rate which is stronger than average. The total
clickthrough rate (that is, the rate of clicks on links contained within the emails) was 2.47%.
2.3 Customer Feedback
2.3.1 C USTOMER S ERVICE L INE C ALLS AND O PT -O UT R ATES
Table 19: CSA Calls and Opt-Out Call Rates
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Calls 411 246 1,087 660 409
Opt-Out Calls 172 66 211 115 93
% of Opt-Out
Calls to Total
Calls
42% 27% 19% 17% 23%
In 2022, IPC customer solutions advisors (CSAs) received 409 calls related to the HER program.
Customers must call in to opt out of paper reports, so it makes sense that opt-outs are a notable
percentage of total calls.
From January to December 2022, CSAs classified each call they received into one of eight categories
as specified in the table below:
● General
● Profile Update
● Opt-Out
● Escalation
● Non-Program-Related
● Switching to Email
● Switch to Paper
● Other
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 25 of 45
Figure 4: 2022 Calls by Type
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 26 of 45
Table 20: – Reasons for Calls to CSAs in 2022 by Category
Call Reason 2022 Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
General 3 20 5 3 53 2 3 31 3 7 15 1 146
Profile
Update — 14 1 — 13 1 — 11 — 5 10 — 55
Opt-Out — 20 2 — 25 1 3 17 2 4 16 3 93
Escalation — — — — — — — — — — — — 0
Non-
Program-
Related
1 14 8 1 17 5 1 19 1 3 7 2 79
Switch to
Email — 6 2 — 5 — — 8 — 3 4 1 29
Switch to
Paper — — 1 — 1 — — 1 — — — — 3
Other — 5 1 1 5 — 1 7 — 4 4 1 29
Total
Reasons* 4 79 20 5 119 9 8 94 6 26 56 8 434
Total
Calls* 4 77 20 4 108 9 7 92 6 23 51 8 409
indicates report month
*Some customers call in for more than one reason which is why there is a variance in Total Reasons and Total Calls.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 27 of 45
Following are some sample notes from CSAs regarding phone calls from customers about the HER
program:
● “[Customer] called advised of needs for more power than others due to caring for her
husband in the home..says she will look at the tips and her usage breakdown to see if they
can be any more judicious with their usage”
● “[Customer] called we discussed his report..all electric but was not in that category so
updated profile to electric heat pump for heating..discussed hot tub added that to profile
to..advised how we are determining the usage breakdown”
● “Questions about the accuracy of the report. hasn't filled out a home profile yet. helped fill it
out the generic info”
● “Customer stated he knows he uses a lot of energy, he is an all electric house and has 2
water heaters.”
● “[Customer] called and was added..discussed always on looks like for that time frame a lot of
that extra was for xmas lights so would be good to go LED with those and then highest usage
Christmas week..advised otherwise looks very good”
● “[Customer] called says got new hvac from El Ada after he called us due to a high HER report
last fall..verified it looks like last couple months have much lower comparative usage than
before his new system”
● “Asked about the HER report and went over usage comparison.“
● “Usage history, helped customer set up MyAccount to fill out the Energy Profile online.”
● “Customer wanted to go over some of the energy efficiency options”
● “Appreciates the information!”
● “Inquired about hour Home Energy Audit, also suggested to log into the Home Profile. sent
email with some helpful energy-savings tips and Energy Efficiency Programs.”
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 28 of 45
2.4 Additional Metrics
2.4.1 M ICROSITE E NGAGEMENT
Table 21: Microsite Activity by Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Unique
Clicks 96 58 43 18 23 17 18 14 11 22 29 74 423
Total
Clicks 96 58 43 18 23 17 18 14 11 30 29 74 431
Unique
Page
Views
19 45 21 26 43 12 22 66 18 116 41 14 443
Total
Page
Views
19 44 21 28 44 12 28 70 20 141 43 18 488
indicates report month
From January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, there were a total of 443 unique page views (that is,
people who navigated to the site) and 423 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 — idahopower.com/HomeEnergyReport — is available from HER reports.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 29 of 45
2.4.2 M Y A CCOUNT W EB A CTIVITY
Since the beginning of the program, the treatment groups have consistently used IPC’s My Account
slightly more than the controls. The treatment group has been an average of 0.07 percent more
active on My Account than the controls since January 2017.
Figure 5 - My Account Activity Treatment vs Control Program to Date
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 30 of 45
2.4.3 A TTRITION R ATE D ETAIL
HER E XPANSION (T6) A TTRITION R ATES
Table 22: T6 Attrition Rates in 2022
T6 Feb May Aug Nov Total
Total Reports Delivered 89,025 87,418 85,462 83,674 345,579
Move Outs 385 2,970 1,663 2,187 7,205
Unsupported Rate Code (I06) 192 167 197 194 750
Location — — — — —
Property 9 2 — 3 14
Opt Outs 17 23 20 17 77
USPS - Non Deliverables 1 — — — — —
Total Permanent Removals 603 3,162 1,880 2,401 8,046
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 779 579 653 198 2,209
Insufficient Benchmarking 20 26 28 44 118
Total Temporary Removals 799 605 681 242 2,327
Total Removals 1,402 3,767 2,561 2,643 10,373
1 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 31 of 45
HER P ILOT (T12345) A TTRITION R ATES
Table 23: T12345 Attrition Rates in 2022
T12345 Feb May Aug Nov Total
Total Reports Delivered 15,651 15,410 15,105 14,839 61,005
Move Outs 50 435 250 307 1,042
Unsupported Rate Code (I06) 22 25 31 33 111
Location — — — — —
Property — — — — —
Opt Outs 2 1 6 5 14
USPS - Non Deliverables 2 — — — — —
Total Permanent Removals 74 461 287 345 1,167
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 92 70 88 31 281
Insufficient Benchmarking 5 7 8 11 31
Total Temporary Removals 97 77 96 42 312
Total Removals 171 538 383 387 1,479
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 32 of 45
3. Process Improvements, Lessons
Learned, and Future Considerations
3.1 Process Improvements
Midway through the year, it became apparent that the Program was not meeting the previously
forecasted savings targets. IPC worked with SilverBlaze/Uplight to explore options for boosting
savings while maintaining costs. Two ideas were introduced: 1) Increase HER participant
engagement by sending email reports (in addition to paper reports) to all HER participants for
which Idaho Power has an email on file, and 2) Find a way to deliver higher-savings hot water
heater tips to participants with electric water heaters.
Both ideas had some technical and business challenges that required process tweaks and
improvements.
Incorporating the Do Not Contact List Quarterly
As part of the eHER expansion in August 2022, we updated our cadence to incorporate new Do Not
Contact (DNC) lists. Idaho Power provides an updated DNC list once a quarter before eHERs go out.
Uplight then cross-references the DNC list with the eHER mailing list and removes any customers
that appear on both lists. This ensures that Program Group customers who ask to be added to
Idaho Power's DNC list are not receiving emails they do not want.
Improved Electric Water Heater Data
Idaho Power and Uplight are always on the lookout for new ways to keep report messaging
personalized and fresh. This is good way to drive additional customer engagement with intent of
increasing program savings.
November 2022, a new flag was implemented to provide money and electricity-saving water tips to
customers likely to have electric hot water heaters. Previously, IPC had been concerned about
sending these tips because customers expect their HERs to be personalized. In addition to creating
customer concern about the quality of data driving the reports, sending water-heater related tips to
customers without electric water heaters would not have resulted in additional program savings.
Incorporating the new data flag allowed us to better target the higher-savings tips while
maintaining customers’ trust in the integrity of the data.
Idaho Power had collected data on customers likely to have electric hot water heaters. Idaho Power
sent the data they collected to Uplight, who then used it to supplement My Account's electric water
heater data. Below is the method Uplight used for prioritizing the water heater data.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 33 of 45
1. If there is no water heater data from My Account for a customer, and there is no data in the
"electric hot water heater likely" file from Idaho Power, leave it blank.
2. If there is no data from My Account for a customer, but there is data in the "hot water
heater likely" file from Idaho Power, use the hot water heater data from Idaho Power.
3. If there is water heater data from My Account but no data in the "hot water heater likely"
file from Idaho Power, use the hot water heater data from My Account.
4. If there is water heater data from My Account and data in the "hot water heater likely" file
from Idaho Power, prioritize the hot water heater data from My Account.
Included NCOA group (USPS undeliverables) in Program Group
The inclusion of USPS undeliverables in our Program Group went well in 2022 and is now part of
our permanent process.
Before May 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 the potential for diluting savings. In April, IPC compared the NCOA list with the mailing
addresses in IPC’s system and found no explicable reason they should have been removed. At IPC’s
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. IPC has not received HERs marked “return to sender” in any notable
quantity to date.
3.2 Lessons Learned
In 2022 there were several lessons learned. These learnings serve as a way to identify future
program improvement opportunities.
Bill Ingestor for Program Wasn’t Erasing Email Addresses
When eHERs were initially launched, they were only sent to customers who opted into email-only
reports. The customer's email address was requested as part of the opt-in process. This ensured
that we had the current customer's latest email address.
In August of 2022, we expanded eHERs to all customers in the Program Group with valid email
addresses. After the first cycle of eHERs was sent, we realized that the bill ingestor used for the
program was not erasing email addresses from the database when they moved out of a location
and became inactive. The ingestor will overwrite the old inactive customer's email address with the
new active customers, but only if that email address is not blank.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 34 of 45
This became a problem since Service Point ID (SDPID) is the unique primary identifier for a location
(e.g., a house). If multiple customers live in a given location over time, one after the other, they will
share the SDPID for that location in their billing records. This means that if a customer with an
email address moved out of a location and a new one moved in and did not have an email address,
the database would store the original customer's email address. As a result, the original customer's
email address would receive the eHERs intended for the new, active customer.
To resolve this issue, we now only send eHERs to customers we could verify had email addresses
belonging to their SDPID in the most recent six weeks of billing data. As part of our standard
process, we now validate that we've received billing data for, without an inactive date and with a
valid email, since the end of the report window, for all customers receiving eHERs.
3.3 Future Considerations
Based on the findings from 2022, Utility Consumer Analytics/Uplight has the following
recommendations for enhancing the program in 2022 and beyond:
Silver Blaze/Uplight to Implement Smart Notifications for CSA Escalations
We considered this change in 2022, but decided the cost-benefit was minimal at this time. Overall,
the number of HER escalations are low - we’ve seen 23 escalations since 2017. None of those
escalations were in 2022, and only 3 of the 23 were in 2021. However, one escalation call received
in 2021 brought an opportunity to light. When customers call in with a HER-related escalation, the
CSA inputs notes on the call into a CSA survey. From there, the IPC Program Specialist only knows
about the escalation through the weekly CSA Report that captures all CSA surveys. Escalations
should be responded to quickly. 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 occurs and when the IPC
Program Specialist can act on the escalation.
The team concurs it’s in IPC’s best interest to reconfigure the CSA survey with “smart notification” so
that an email is immediately sent to the IPC Program Specialist when an escalation is submitted to
Silver Blaze/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. We are currently manually tracking escalations on a
frequent cadence.
Add “electric hot water heater likely” data to My Account
Now that the electric hot water heater flag is incorporated, enhanced segmentation for customers
with and without electric water heaters is possible. In November 2022, we used the new flag to
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 35 of 45
provide money and electricity-saving water tips to customers likely to have electric hot water
heaters.
The next step is to upload the “electric hot water heater likely” directly to My Account with the
abovementioned prioritization. This will improve customers’ Profiles in My Account and allow us to
use the My Account data export as the source of truth for the water heater type.
Revise How Quarterly Progress to Forecast is Tracked
IPC noted that forecast numbers didn't always align with the quarter's savings recorded in the QMR.
Uplight explained that there was a method difference in how the two numbers were pulled and is
currently looking into aligning those methods to remove some of the confusion.
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 36 of 45
4. Appendices
4.1 Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports
A-1. S AMPLE P RINT HER — A LWAYS -O N T IPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 37 of 45
A-2. S AMPLE P RINT HER — A/C T IPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 38 of 45
A-3. S AMPLE E MAIL R EPORT — A LWAYS -O N T IPS
A-4. S AMPLE E MAIL R EPORT — A/C T IPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 39 of 45
A-5. S AMPLE P RINT R EPORT — A PPLIANCES & L IGHTS T IPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 40 of 45
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 41 of 45
A-6. S AMPLE E MAIL R EPORT — A PPLIANCES & L IGHTS T IPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 42 of 45
A-7. S AMPLE P RINT R EPORT — H EATING T IPS
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 43 of 45
A-8. S AMPLE E MAIL R EPORT — H EATING T IPS
A-9 Samples print report - hot water tips
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 44 of 45
4.2 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 16, 2022 January 1, 2022 – March 31, 2022
Q2 August 16, 2022 April 1, 2022 - June 30, 2022
Q3 November 15, 2022 July 1, 2022 - September 30, 2022
Q4 February 21, 2023 October 1, 2022 - December 31,
2022
www.adaptiveconsumerengagement.com
Page 45 of 45
Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report Program Year 2022
Quarterly Monitoring Report is for Report Period October 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022
Presented on February 21, 2023
Agenda
Program Overview
Savings Estimates
Program Results
Microsite and CSA Results 
Attrition and Opt-outs 
Questions
2
3
Home Energy Report Program Overview
2022 Program Design
4
Total # of Customers in Quarter
Group Customers
Eligible to Receive
Reports
Customers
that Received Reports
T1 (electric
heating)
4,400 4,398
T2 (electric
heating)
3,680 3,670
T3 4,616 4,610
T4 2,171 2,164
T6 84,210 83,674
Total 99,077 98,516
Pilot Customers Treated: 14,867
Pulled quarterly after reports are sent.
Customers Eligible to Receive Reports is a subset of the Evaluation Group. Some of the eligible customers did not
receive reports.
Report Schedule
5
2022
Cohort Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
T1, T2, T3, T4, T6
T5 customers were removed from treatment in May 2020
2023
Cohort Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
T1, T2, T3, T4, T6
Terminology
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. These customers may or may not be actively receiving reports.
Overview of Waves
Wave 1
●Group 1 = high heating group
●Group 3 = high overall usage group
●Group 4 = medium overall usage group
●Group 5 = low overall usage group (removed)
Wave 2
●Group 2 = high heating group
Wave 3
●Group 6 = all remaining eligible customers (added June 2020)
6
7
Program Savings Summary
Q4 Quarterly Savings Summary
8
Cohort Treatment Period
Average Energy
Savings in kWh
per Customer
Cumulative
Savings (all months, all
households, kWh)
Percent Savings
 T1234 October 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022 21.56 344,854 0.83%
T6 October 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022 47.60 4,034,857 1.25%
T12346 October 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022 43.46 4,379,711 1.18%
T1 T2 T3 T4 T6
Treatment 4,730 4,154 4,837 2,272 84,772
Control 1,186 664 2,881 2,135 11,477
T&C counts are for the current quarter only and are captured at end of quarter.
This is what we refer to as the Evaluation Group. Customers that moved out before the beginning of the quarter are not included in savings and T&C counts.
2022 Savings Summary
9
Cohort Treatment Period
Average Energy
Savings in kWh per
Customer
Cumulative
Savings (all months, all
households, kWh)
Percent Savings
 T1234 January 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022 169.67 2,746,962 1.08%
T6 January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022 206.61 17,728,033 1.35%
T12346 January 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022 200.74 20,474,995 1.31%
T1 T2 T3 T4 T6
Treatment 4,803 4,203 4,892 2,292 85,806
Control 1,196 674 2,916 2,158 11,604
T&C counts are for Jan 1st - Treatment Period end date and are captured at end of the treatment quarter. This is what we refer to as the Evaluation Group. Customers that moved out during the Treatment Period are included in savings and T&C counts.
11
HER Program Results
Average Energy Savings in kWh per Customer
12
Average Monthly Energy Savings in %
13
Aggregate Monthly Savings
14
Combined Aggregate Savings by Month (kWh)
15
T12346 Peer Comparison Distribution for the November Report
18
Attrition Overview – T1234
19
T12345 Feb2021 May 2021 Aug 2021 Nov2021 Feb2022 May 2022 Aug 2022 Nov2022 2022 Total
Total Reports Delivered 16,915 16,652 16,263 15,965 15,651 15,410 15,105 14,839 61,005
Move Outs 269 214 298 271 50 435 250 307 1,042
Unsupported Rate Code (IO6)———103 22 25 31 33 111
Location 100 ————————
Property ——57 ——————
Opt-Outs 4 7 1 1 2 1 6 5 14
USPS - Non Deliverables 47 ————————
Total Permanent Removals 420 221 356 375 74 461 287 345 1,167
AMI Insufficient/Negative
Usage 65 48 132 105 92 70 88 31 281
Insufficient Benchmarking —4 2 4 5 7 8 11 31
Total Temporary Removals 65 52 134 109 97 77 96 42 312
Total Removals 485 273 490 484 171 538 383 387 1,479
Numbers for current quarter are pulled right before quarterly report generation
Attrition Overview – T6
20
T6 Feb
2021
May
2021
Aug
2021
Nov
2021
Feb
2022
May
2022
Aug
2022
Nov
2022
2022
Total
Total Reports Delivered 98,238 96,277 93791 91,233 89,025 87,418 85,462 83,674 345,579
Move Outs 1,501 1,702 2,199 2,265 385 2,970 1,663 2,187 7,205
Unsupported Rate Code
(IO6)———599 192 167 197 194 750
Location 377 ————————
Property 5 14 24 8 9 2 —3 14
Opt-Outs 38 38 21 28 17 23 20 17 77
USPS - Non Deliverables 314 ————————
Total Permanent Removals 2,235 1,754 2,244 2,900 603 3,162 1,880 2,401 8,046
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 513 374 901 996 779 579 653 198 2,209
Insufficient Benchmarking —18 5 19 20 26 28 44 118
Total Temporary Removals 513 392 906 1,105 799 605 681 242 2,327
Total Removals 2,748 2,146 3,105 3,915 1,402 3,767 2,561 2,643 10,373
Numbers for current quarter are pulled right before quarterly report generation
Attrition and Opt Out Rates
21
T1234 Customers (January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022)
Permanent Removals 1,170 4.44%
Opt Outs 17 0.065%
T6 Customers (January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022)
Permanent Removals 8,058 7.42%
Opt Outs 89 0.082%
All Treatment Customers (January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022)
Permanent Removals 9,228 6.84%
Opt Outs 106 0.079%
22
Average Electricity Use Breakdown
T12346 July - Sept AL_WH T12346 Nov - March
(Previous Winter) ESH
23
Email Open Rates Remain High
May
2020
Aug
2020
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Feb
2021
May
2021
Aug
2021
Nov
2021
Feb
2022
May
2022
Aug
2022
Nov
2022
Total # of
Emails 12 55 75 16 89 106 122 126 153 151 152 52,34845,320
Click-Through Rate 25%7.5%7.7%8.3%22.6%16.5%4.8%6.4%10.4%22%9.9%2.8%2.0%
Open Rate 73%73%69%75%70%75%68%75%75%81%73%49%52%
Unsubscribe
Clicks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 0 58 42
Unsubscribe Rate 0%0%0%0%0%0%0.8%0%0%1.2%0%0.05%0.02%
Click Rate on Rebate Link 0%0%0%0%0%4%0%1.1%0%1.6%1.8%0.72%6.2%
•15 total pilot
customers switched
to email (0.1%)
•176 total new
customers switched
to email (0.16%)
•45,320 total emails
were delivered in
November 2022
2022 Email Click-Throughs
24
Feb May Aug Nov
View HTML 9 4 270 169
Feb May Aug Nov
Rebates 2 2 187 29
Feb May Aug Nov
FAQ 0 0 0 0
Feb May Aug Nov
Privacy 2 0 7 2
Feb May Aug Nov
Learn More 3 1 30 16
Feb May Aug Nov
Unsubscribe 5 0 58 42
Feb May Aug Nov
MyAccount 3 3 122 123
25
CSA & Microsite Analysis
Call Center Volume Reflects Quarterly Schedule
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total
Calls*411 246 1,087 660 409
Treatment
Month
* Some customers call in for more than one reason which is
why there is a variance in Total Reasons and Total Calls.
Total Call Center Volume down 38% compared to 2021 and 62% from 2020!
Call Reason 2022 Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
General 3 20 5 3 53 2 3 31 3 7 15 1 146
Profile Update —14 1 —13 1 —11 —5 10 —55
Opt-Out —20 2 —25 1 3 17 2 4 16 3 93
Escalation ————————————0
Non-Program Related 1 14 8 1 17 5 1 19 1 3 7 2 79
Switch to Email —6 2 —5 ——8 —3 4 1 29
Switch to
Paper ——1 —1 ——1 ————3
Other —5 1 1 5 —1 7 —4 4 1 29
Total Reasons*4 79 20 5 119 9 8 94 6 26 56 8 434
28
2022 Distribution of Calls by Type
Customer Insights and Comments
General Questions
•“Requested info on energy-savings programs for our residential customers. ”
•“[Customer] was concerned that uses 70 percent more over summer AC time. We talked about historical heat
wave and isn't directly related to homes in his sub it is the county. We talked about smart thermostat, energy audit and EE tips. They are on well water and retired so home all the time. Didn't want to fill out home profile.
Would like to know on report how many homes were in this higher threshold.”
•“Wanted to know if any programs available to upgrade home.”
•“Gary called showing above average even with new AC and furnace..advised he does pretty good just at the high
range of 1k-2k comparison with 1980 sq ft”
Opt-outs
•“Customer feels the information is inaccurate”
•“Customer is planning to move out”
Other
•“she feels like she is being judged for using too much electricity.”
•“[Customer] high efficiency showerhead from past kit needs another one. Advised we no longer offer the kits.
Recommended researching the brand online or at local hardware store for replacement. It was a High efficiency
Evolve showerhead with thermostatic shower valve (TSV)”
29
Appendix
Attrition Overview Definitions
Unsupported Rate Code: Customers whose rate code is I06.
Location: People who don’t have assigned benchmark location due to insufficient benchmarks. In February 2021, customers under this category were permanently removed. Location removals afterwards are temporary and can be tracked under Insufficient Benchmarking.*
Property: Customers with unsupported hometype. For T12345, it is home type other than single family home and manufactured home. For T6, it is home type other than single family home.
Opt-Out: Customers who opted out. This number is pulled directly from our backend system.
USPS - Non deliverables: Customers verified as undeliverable by USPS. They were not removed from program anymore after 2021 February.
AMI Insufficient/ Negative Usage: Customers whose total hourly AMI count is below 90% within report window period or below 97.5% within HoD period (one year); customers whose total usage within window period is negative. Before 2020 June, this category is permanent removals. Afterwards it changed into temporary removals.*
Insufficient benchmark: Customers whose benchmark home count is below threshold. These customers are temporarily removed as they could lead to the missing of assigned benchmark location. Benchmarking is related to the home profile information.
The HPU is updated every month. If customers or the benchmark homes’ HPU got updated, the benchmarking may become insufficient. For example, if the threshold of benchmark count is 100 homes and one customer has exactly 100 benchmark homes. Once one of the benchmark home’s HPU doesn’t match with the customer home after we update HPU, the customers would be labelled as insufficient benchmark.
34*IPC raised concerns over the usage of permanent vs temporary removals. Work is needed for these definitions. We will be working together to improve definitions.
Savings Method Change
Old Method
Prior to Q3 2021, 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 
Per Craig Williamson’s suggestion, 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.
35
Statistical Significance of Savings Calculated
36
Cohort
Average Savings
(kWh) per
Customer
95% Confidence
Margin of Error
P-Value of Null
Hypothesis
being true
Statistically
Significant?Treatment Period
T1234 21.56 14.46 0.00173 YES October 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022
T6 47.60 24.91 9.005E-05 YES October 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022
T12346Combined 43.46 9.49 1.42419E-19 YES October 1, 2022 –
December 31, 2022
Null hypothesis = no energy savings; Alternative hypothesis = treatment is using less energy
than control. Corresponds to a one-tailed test
T1 T2 T3 T4 T6
Treatment 4,730 4,154 4,837 2,272 84,772
Control 1,186 664 2,881 2,135 11,477
T1234 Savings Confidence Intervals
37
T6 Savings Confidence Intervals
38
T12346 Savings Confidence Intervals
39