20120807Update and Revisions to 2011 DSM Report.pdf

I August 7,2012
2817 AUG -7 AH ID: 03 201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 841 11
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
I Re: Revision to the Annual 2011 Idaho Demand Side Management Report
Attn: Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
PacifiCorp (d.b.a. Rocky Mountain Power) hereby submits for filing an update to its 201 1
Demand Side Management Annual Report, pursuant to Order No. 29976 fiom Case No. PAC-E-
05-10.
Rocky Mountain Power was notified by Portland Energy Conservation Inc. of an error in their
Home Energy Savings ("HES') data which affected Idaho. This revised filing includes the
update to all savings numbers and cost effectiveness calculations associated with HES. Specific
changes to the report include: Tables 1,2,3,6,8,9 and 10 and updated savings and/or CE ratios.
Appendix 1 CE Changes:
Updated 201 1 Portfolio and Sector Cost Effectiveness Summary
201 1 Total Portfolio Energy Efficiency CE
201 1 Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio CE
Tables 1-3 for the Home Energy Savings program
For any informal questions, please contact Ted Weston, Manager, Idaho Regulatory Affairs, at
(80 1) 220-2963.
I Sincerely,
)$W-Vbw6 fiey K. Larsen
Vice President, Regulation & Government Affairs
Rocky Mountain Power
20 1 1 Energy Efficiency
and Peak Reduction
Revised August 3 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction and Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 4
201 1 Performance and Activity ...................................................................................................... 6
Company Filings with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission .................................................... 10
..................................................................................................... Outreach and Communications 12 . . Peak Reduction Program and Activity .......................................................................................... 14
Energy Efficiency Programs and Activity .................................................................................... 17
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs and Activity ................................................................. 19
......................................................... Non-Residential Energy Efficiency Programs and Activity 28
Summary of 201 1 Results ............................................................................................................. 34
Balancing Account Summary ....................................................................................................... 36
Cost Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 37
Appendices. ................................................................................................................................... 39
Table of Tables
Table 1 : Total Portfolio Performance ............................................................................................ 4
Table 2: Energy Efficiency and Peak Reduction Annual Results .................................................. 6
Table 3: Program Evaluation Timeline .......................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Load Management Portfolio Performance ..................................................................... 14
Table 5: Irrigation Load Control Program Performance .............................................................. 15
Table 6: Energy Efficiency Portfolio Performance ..................................................................... 17
....................................................................... Table 7: Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio 18
Table 8: Commercial & Industrial Energy Efficiency Portfolio .................................................. 18
Table 9: Home Energy Savings Program Performance ............................................................... 19
Table 10: Home Energy Savings Measure Performance ............................................................. 20
Table 1 1 : See ya later. refrigerator@ Program Performance ....................................................... 22
Table 12: See ya later. refrigerator@ Results ............................................................................... 22
Table 13 : Low Income Weatherization Performance .................................................................. 25
Table 14: Conservation Education .............................................................................................. 2 7
Table 15: Energy FinAnswer Program ........................................................................................ 28
Table 16: Energy FinAnswer by Measure Type .......................................................................... 28
Table 17: FinAnswer Express Program ....................................................................................... 30
......................................................................... Table 18: FinAnswer Express by Measure Type 30
Table 19: Agricultural Energy Services Program ........................................................................ 32
Table 20: Agricultural Energy Savers by Measure ...................................................................... 33
Table 2 1 : Revenues (Schedule 191) by Customer Type .............................................................. 34
Table 22: Expenditures (Schedule 191) by Customer Type ........................................................ 34
Table 23: Energy Efficiency kwh Saved by Customer Type ...................................................... 35
Table 24: Balancing Account Activity (Schedule 191) ............................................................... 36
Introduction and Executive Summary
Rocky Mountain Power (the "Company") working in partnership with its retail customers and
with the approval of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (the "IPUC"), acquires energy
efficiency and peak reduction resources as cost-effective alternatives to the acquisition of supply-
side resources. These resources assist the Company in efficiently addressing load growth and
contribute to the Company's ability to meet system peak requirements. Company energy
efficiency and peak reduction programs provide participating Idaho customers with tools that
enable them to reduce or assist in the management of their energy usage, while reducing the
overall costs to Rocky Mountain Power's customers. These resources are a valuable component
of Rocky Mountain Power's resource portfolio and are relied upon in resource planning as a least
cost alternative to supply-side resources.
Rocky Mountain Power currently offers seven energy efficiency and peak reduction programs in
Idaho. In 201 1, costs associated with these programs were recovered through the Customer
Efficiency Services Rate Adjustment (Schedule 191), with the exception of the expenses
associated with the irrigation load control program1. The results of Rocky Mountain Power's
Idaho energy efficiency and peak reduction programs for the reporting period of January 1,201 1
through December 3 1,201 1 are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1 : Total Portfolio performance2
(Note: See notes for Table 2 for explanation of Gross Savings and line loss assumptions)
System Benefit Revenues Collected $ 5,356,975
System Benefit Expenditures (excludes Irrigation) $ 2,574,217
Total Expenditures including Irrigation $ 11,898,261
MWof Participaton Load (Gross at Generation) 281.4
kWhNr Savings (Gross at Generation) 9,513,431
k M N r Savings (at Site) 8,688,218
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Overall first year energy savings for 201 1 achieved through energy efficiency programs,
decreased approximately 27 percent while Customer Efficiency Services expenditures decreased
27 percent.
Portfolio Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kwh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kwh)
1 The Idaho Public Utilities Commission, in Case No. PAC-E-10-07, ordered that the costs associated with the Idaho
Irrigation Load Control Program should be allocated as system costs and not situs to Idaho.
2 Savings and expenditures from school projects completed under the Idaho Office of Energy Resources Energy
Efficiency Incentives Agreement were removed from the PTRC, TRC and PCT cost effectiveness calculations and
results. See Appendix 1.
4.348
N A
1.735 4.937 3.953
N A
2.224
N A
At the end of 201 1, the Customer Efficiency Services balancing account had an unfunded
balance of $1,564,182.
Rocky Mountain Power's energy efficiency and peak reduction portfolio level performance for
201 1 was cost effective across all five cost effectiveness tests.
2011 Performance and Activity
Program and Sector level results for 201 1 are provided on the following table3. Program
Schedules are noted in parenthesis in the table.
Table 2: Energy Efficiency and Peak Reduction Annual Results
I I I kWh/Yr Savings I kWhlYr Savings I Program I
Refrigerator Recycling (1 17) I 71 0 943,1761 1,037,069 1 $ 107,033
Program
Low Income weatherization (21)
Low Income Education Program (21)
Units
100
168
Home Energy Savings (1 18)
Total Residential
Energy FinAnswer (125)
FinAnswer Express (1 15)
I I I I
Energy FinAnswer (1 25) 131 478,200 1 521,501 1 $ 136,064
(at site)
228,605
22,848
7,606
8,584
Total Commercial
1
70
(at generator)
251,363
25,123
2,411,296
3,605,925
71
I I I
Expenditures
$ 253,809
$ 42,500
9,727
2.21 9,662
Agricultural Energy Services (1 55)
Total Industrial
Total System benefit Expenditures -All Programs $ 2,574,217
Irrigation Load Control Expenditures (Schedule 72 and 72A) $ 9,324,044
2,651,341
3,964,896
2,229,389
15,6071 $ 67,910 FinAnswer Express (1 15)
Total Energy Wiciency
I Total Idaho Program Expenditures $ 11,898,261 1
$ 613,890
$ 1,017,233
10,634
2,426,668
2 14,311
219
234
8,688,218 1 9,513,432 1 2,363,302
3 Savings values in this table are shown prior to any net-to-gross adjustment. The values at generation include line
losses between the customer site and the generation source. The Company's line losses by sector are 9.96 percent for
residential, 9.33 percent for commercial and 9.06 percent for industrial. These values are based on the Company's
2007 Transmission and Distribution Loss Study by Management Applications Consulting published in October
2008.
$ 18,303
$ 632,813
2,437,302
Energy Efficiency Emluation Costs $ 21 0,915
$ 651,116
2,360,393
2,852,904
2,574,126
3,111,234
$ 490,980
$ 694,954
Major Trends and Activities
In 201 1, the Company's energy efficiency program performance decreased across all customer
sectors on a kWhIyear basis compared to 2010 results. Residential savings decreased by 19
percent, commercial by 35 percent, and industrial by 30 percent (including agricultural sector),
respectively.
Expenditures related to energy efficiency program delivery decreased in 201 1 as compared to
2010 by 27 percent. At a sector level, the residential sector expenditures decreased by 37 percent
and commercial and industrial sectors decreased by 17 percent.
Results of the irrigation load control program reflect program changes agreed to in a stipulation
between the Company, Idaho Irrigation Pumper Association and the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Staff, approved by Commission Order 32235 on April 27, 201 1. The order froze
program participation to existing participants and the participants were required to either reduce
participating loads by 18 percent or accept an 18 percent reduction in the incentive value. Of the
283 megawatts of connected load in 2010, 258 megawatts participated during the 201 1 control
season (as measured at the customer meter).
Cost Effectiveness
Consistent with the requirements outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the
Company and Idaho Commission Staff, the Company provides cost effectiveness results utilizing
five cost effectiveness tests:
1. PacifiCorp Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
2. Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
3. Utility Cost Test (UCT)
4. Ratepayer Impact Test (RIM)
5. Participant Cost Test (PCT)
The PTRC (also referred to as the TRC + Conservation Adder) is a variation of the TRC test. It
includes a 10 percent benefit adder to account for non-quantified benefits of conservation
resources over supply-side alternatives. This is consistent with Northwest Power Planning and
Conservation Act.
The TRC compares the total cost of a supply side resource to the total cost of an energy
efficiency program resource, including costs paid by the customer in excess of the program
incentives provided. This test is used to determine if an energy efficiency program is cost
effective from a total cost perspective.
The UCT, also referred to as the Program Administrator Test, compares the portion of the
resource costs paid directly by the Company. This test is useful in determining the cost
effectiveness of the resource from the Company's perspective; however it does not account for
the portion of the cost that is borne directly by customers.
The RIM test determines the impact an energy efficiency program has on rates. The ultimate
objective of an energy efficiency program is to encourage customers to use less energy, thereby
reducing energy sales. The RIM test accounts for the cost of lost revenues to the utility
associated with kwh sales reductions. The net impact of these reductions can put near-term
upward pressure on rates even when total costs are lower with a successful energy efficiency
program than with a supply-side alternative. One challenge with the RIM test however is that its
more sensitive than the other tests to differences between long-term projections of marginal costs
and long-term projections of rates, two cost streams that are difficult to quantify with certainty.
The PCT test compares the portion of the resource cost paid directly by participants to the
savings realized by the participant. For the PCT test, bill savings are the realized benefit of
energy efficiency rather than the avoided supply-side costs.
The results for each test are provided at several levels:
1. Overall portfolio level, consolidation of all Company delivered programs
2. Load control and energy efficiency program portfolios separately
3. Residential and non-residential energy efficiency program portfolios separately
4. At the individual program level
Results of the cost effectiveness tests are included in the summary overview for each program.
Further details including key inputs and assumptions for each of the cost effectiveness tests are
provided in the cost effectiveness section of this report.
Program Evaluation
Rocky Mountain Power's Program Evaluation Timeline (Table 3 below) provides a summary of
the scheduled completion of program evaluations.
Table 3: Program Evaluation Timeline
As noted in Table 3, the Company completed third-party independent process and impact
evaluation for low income weatherization, Home Energy Savings and See ya later, refrigerator@.
Findings from these evaluations will be key inputs to ongoing program design considerations as
well as inputs to future cost effectiveness determinations.
Evaluator
Cadmus
Cadmus
Cadmus
Navigant
Navigant
Navigant
Program Year(s)
Evaluated
2007-2009
2009-201 0
2009-201 0
2009-201 1
2009-201 1
2009-201 1
Program
Low Income Weatherization
Home Energy Savings
See ya later, refrigerator@
Energy FinAnswer
FinAnswer Express
Irrigation Energy Savers
Evaluation
TY pe
Process and
lrnpact
Process and
lmpact
Process and
lmpact
Process and
lmpact
Process and
lmpact
Process and
lrnpact
Status
Complete
complete
complete
ln process
In Process
ln process
Anticipated
Year
Complete
201 1
Q1 2012
Q l 2012
201 2
2012
2012
Company Filings with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
The Company made several filings with the Commission regarding its energy efficiency and
peak reduction programs during 201 1. Summary information concerning these filings is provided
as follows:
On January 20, 2011, Rocky Mountain Power filed an application with the Commission
requesting prospective changes to the Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control program, which is
administered through Schedule 72A. This matter was subsequently assigned to Case No. PAC-E-
11-06. Through the application, the Company proposed adding language to the tariff to control
participation, in an effort to address adverse impacts to the distribution system. The Company
also proposed changing the opt-out or liquidated damages penalty from a variable market price
for energy structure to a penalty that results in a decrease in participation credits or participant
incentive for each opt-out over 1 per season. Other proposed changes were minor administrative
adjustments to tariff language. Ultimately a stipulation was entered into by the Company, Idaho
Irrigation Pumper Association and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff to set the
operating parameters for the 201 1 - 2012 control seasons. The stipulation provided for the
following changes in the operation of the program:
For 201 1 and 2012, the parties agreed that program participation would be targeted to
achieve 232 megawatts of participation load. The company would work to reduce
program participation from the 2010 level of 283 megawatts by 18 percent to
approximately 232 megawatts. The Company would work with participants to identify
the approximate reduction necessary to achieve an 18 percent reduction. Participants
without the ability to identify an 18 percent reduction by segmenting pumps would
receive a payment equal to 82 percent of their available participation credit incentive.
Incentive payments for 201 1 were reduced by $1.45 per kilowatt per year to reflect
system constraints.
The Company committed to invest a minimum of $1.3 million in capital improvements to
identify and install equipment needed to reduce the constraints on the distribution system
prior to the start of the 2012 control season.
As part of the annual irrigation report, the Company agreed to complete a review of
circuit loading and recommend any needed changes or investments for the following
years' irrigation season to continue to address circuit load issues.
The dispatch program season was changed to June 1 - August 3 1 of each year.
During 201 1 - 2012 program seasons no new Program participants or additional existing
participants load will be accepted into the program.
At the discretion of the Company and by agreement with selected customers, the
Company could require the manual operation of selected pumps during control events.
Opt-out provisions were modified to reflect the loss of participation credits rather than
market prices.
On February 28,201 1, the Company submitted its 20 10 Energy Efficiency and Peak Reduction
Balancing Account Review with the Commission.
On April 27, 201 1, the Commission issued an order approving the changes incorporated by the
parties in the stipulation.
On April 29, 2011, the Company submitted its 2010 Idaho Energy Efficiency and Peak
Reduction Annual Report with the Commission.
On April 29, 201 1, Rocky Mountain Power filed an application with the Commission seeking
authorization to suspend future program evaluations for Schedule 21, Low Income
Weatherization Services Optional for Income Qualifying Customers. This matter was
subsequently assigned to Case No. PAC-E-11-13. On January 18, 2012, the Commission issued
an order denying the Company's request.
Outreach and Communications
The following outreach, communications and promotional activities occurred to support Rocky
Mountain Power's energy efficiency programs in 201 1.
Home Energy Savings program
Two bill inserts for the Home Energy Savings program featuring ENERGY STAR@ ceiling fans
and high efficiency heat pumps.
New point-of-purchase materials were developed in 201 1. These items included in-store banners
for big box retailers, compact fluorescent lighting ("CFL") cardboard kiosks, CFL booklet, CFL
shelf flap, appliance table tents, applianceflighting danglers and room air conditioner box
stickers.
A "blue envelope" promotion ran from September 19 to November 15 encouraging the purchase
of qualifying dishwashers, clothes washers and refrigerators. A total of 135 applications were
received as a result of this effort.
In October and November, a retail sales associate promotion ran in an effort to increase
appliance redemptions prior to Black Friday.
Two direct mail postcards promoting heat pumps and insulation were sent to approximately
1,100 customers in November.
New resource manuals, pocket guides and fact sheets were provided to retailers along with key
Home Energy Savings program information.
See ya later, refrigerator@
Newspaper ads for the See ya later, refiigeratorQ3 recycling program ran in Idaho Falls,
Pocatello and Rexburg papers during spring months. Digital ads through Yahoo and other
websites were also a part of the program communications.
Three inserts were included in Idaho residential customer bills (April, June and August).
In October, residential customers received a mailing with a refrigerator magnet encouraging
them to recycle their old refrigerators or freezers.
Energy FinAnswer & FinAnswer Express
Ads encouraging businesses and organizations to upgrade lighting in advance of changes in
federal fluorescent lighting standards ran in Idaho Falls and Pocatello newspapers and in the
Idaho Business Review in May and July. A new handout was also developed to educate
customers on the lighting standards changes.
On May 3, Idaho trade allies were invited to a breakfast to learn about the resources available to
help them save energy and money for themselves and their clients with the FinAnswer Express
program.
Irrigation Load Control
Customers on Rate Schedule 10 received a mailing in February with information on the
prescheduled and dispatchable load control options. A follow up letter was sent in April to
inform customers of program modifications.
General Communications
Rocky Mountain Power included energy efficiency messages in radio, print and digital ads as
part of its ongoing Customer Awareness campaign that ran throughout the year.
Residential customers in Idaho received Rocky Mountain Power's Voices newsletter in bills in
January, March, April, May, July, September, October and November. Each issue covered
energy efficiency information and tips as well as other service related topics.
Other newsletters such as Energy Insights, Energy Connections and Energy Update reach
community, business and government audiences on a quarterly or monthly basis. Newsletters
included energy efficiency stories geared toward commercial, industrial and agricultural
audiences.
Rocky Mountain Power has developed a variety of brochures and event materials with
information on energy efficiency programs and resources to help customers save money.
Customers can visit www.wattsmart.com for information on energy efficiency incentive
programs, tips and other resources to save energy and money. This information is also accessible
through our main website at www.rockvmountain~ower.net.
Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho Twitter account (@RMP-Idaho) is used to promote energy
efficiency programs, recruit customers and inform customers with tips.
Additionally, Rocky Mountain Power's wattsmart Facebook page (www.facebook.com/
rockymountainpower.wattsmart) points customers to energy efficiency programs and provides
conservation ideas.
Peak Reduction Program and Activity
Peak Reduction programs assist the Company in balancing the timing of customer energy
requirements during heavy use hours; deferring the need for higher cost investments in delivery
infrastructure and generation resources that would otherwise be needed to serve those
requirements for a select few hours each year. These programs help the Company maximize the
efficiency of the Company's existing electrical system and reduce costs for all customers.
Programs targeting capacity related resources are often specific to end use loads most prevalent
in a given jurisdiction, such as the agricultural pumping loads in the Company's Idaho service
territory. The Company offers two peak reduction programs in Idaho; a pre-schedule and on-call
or dispatchable irrigation load control program. For the purpose of this report the two programs
are being combined and evaluated as one program.
Table 4: Load Management Portfolio performance4
4 Decrement values are considered confidential on load control programs. Cost effectiveness ratios and inputs will be available
under a protective agreement. A "Pass" designation equates to a benefit to cost ratio of 1 or better.
kW Under Control (Gross -At Gen) 281,362 Realized Load (Gross -At Gen) 178,850
kW Under Control (At Site) 258,000 Realized Load (At Site) 164,000
Total Expenditures $ 9,324,044
Participation Credits $ 6,074,644
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Program Cost Effectiveness Pass I pass I pass I Pass I N A
Irrigation Load Control (Schedule 72 and 72A)
Irrigation Load Control (Schedules 72 & 72A) is offered to irrigation customers receiving
electric service on Schedule 10, Irrigation and Soil Drainage Pumping Power Service.
Participants allow the curtailment of their electricity usage as prescribed in Schedules 72 and
72A in exchange for a participation credit. For most participants their irrigation equipment is set
up with a dispatchable two-way control system giving the Company control over their loads.
Participants are provided a day-ahead notification in advance of control events and have the
choice to opt-out of a limited number of dispatch events per season.
A summary of the program performance, expenditures, participation and cost effectiveness
results are provided in table 5:
Table 5: Irrigation Load Control Program Performance
M W Under Control (Gross - At Gen) 281.4 Realized Load 178.9
Expenditures - Total $ 9,324,044
Participation Credits $ 6,074,644
Program Operations Expense $ 3,249,400
Participation (Customers) 728
Participation (Sites) 2,165
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Program Cost Effectieness I Pass I Pass I Pass I Pass I N A
Major Trends and Activities
The Irrigation Load Control Program was available for 52 hours from June 1 to August 3 1. The
program had the estimated potential to curtail 196 megawatts of load on July 18, the peak day.
In 201 1 Rocky Mountain Power had three load control events. The first load control dispatch
was on June 29 and was estimated to reduce peak system load by 168 megawatts in Idaho. This
curtailment represented 69 percent of the potential 2455 megawatts of available load control
customer's peak demand.
The second dispatch occurred on July 7 and was estimated to reduce system peak 160
megawatts. This curtailment represented 62 percent of the potential 25s6 megawatts of available
load control customer's peak demand.
The third dispatch was on July 11 and was estimated to reduce the system peak by 165
megawatts. This curtailment represented 64 percent of the potential 258 megawatts of available
load control customer's peak demand.
Demand fluctuates month to month. June's undiversified demand for load control customers was 245 megawatts.
July's undiversified demand for load control customers was 258 megawatts.
Idaho load control events for 201 1 achieved 62 percent to 69 percent of the available participant
peak load.
To comply with the settlement agreement approved by the Commission on April, 27, 201 1,
Rocky Mountain Power studied the distribution system to determine which circuits were affected
the most by the Irrigation Load Control Program. It was determined that fourteen circuits on
seven substations were most susceptible to high voltage issues relating to the program. Rocky
Mountain Power engineered a solution to the problem by replacing manual capacitor banks with
automatic sensing capacitors that would turn on and off automatically to maintain acceptable
voltage levels. On these 14 circuits, 46 automatic switched capacitors were installed and 59
manual capacitors are being removed. This work is scheduled to be completed before the start of
the 2012 irrigation season.
Cost Effectiveness
The program was cost effective from all perspectives. Decrement values or avoided costs are
considered confidential on load control programs. Cost effectiveness ratios and inputs will be
available under a protective agreement. A "Pass" designation equates to a benefit to cost ratio of
1 or better.
Plans for 2012
The program will be implemented during 2012 in accordance with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Order 32235 dated April 27,201 1.
Energy Efficiency Programs and Activity
Energy efficiency programs deliver sustainable energy savings by improving the efficiency of
equipment such as motors, lighting and cooling equipment. Energy efficiency is also delivered
through improved weatherization of existing buildings, improving the design features of new
facilities by ensuring they are constructed to exceed code. In the industrial sector, improvements
in industrial equipment or processes can also improve energy utilization and deliver long term
energy efficiency resources. Replacement of existing functional equipment, replacement of
equipment at the end of its useful life and improvement opportunities all provide opportunities to
deliver energy efficiency resources. While each type of opportunity has unique challenges,
improvements in these areas all deliver long term energy savings over the life of the installed
equipment.
To deliver resources from these different opportunities, the Company offers six energy efficiency
programs; three targeted to residential customers and three targeted to business customers. The
programs are designed to work in a coordinated fashion and provide complementary services
(i.e. recycle an existing refrigerator afier buying a new Energy Star model) or different incentive
options (i.e., Energy FinAnswer incentives at the time a project is completed). Some programs or
program features are specifically designed to capture lost opportunities (the Design Assistance
provision in Energy FinAnswer), while other programs target retrofit or replacement
opportunities in existing structures (i.e., FinAnswer Express and Home Energy Savings).
Results for the 201 1 Energy Efficiency Portfolio are presented in the following tables:
Table 6: Energy Efficiency Portfolio Performance
System Benefit Expenditures $ 2,363,302
Energy Efficiency First Year Savings kWhNr (Gross at Generation) 9,513,431
Energy Efficiency First Year Savings kWhNr (at Site) 8,688,218
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Portfolio Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kWh)
2.166 0.694 1.240
$ 0.0783
$0.0000360
1.127
$ 0.0783
1.61 1
$ 0.0550
Table 7: Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio
Table 8: Commercial & Industrial Energy Efficiency Portfolio
System Benefit Expenditures $ 1,017,233
Residential Energy Efficiency First Year Savings kWhNr (Gross at Generation) 3,964,895
Residential Energy Efficiency First Year Savings kWhNr (at Site) 3,605,925
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Portfolio Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($kwh)
System Benefit Expenditures $ 1,346,069
C&l Energy Efficiency First Year Savings kWhNr (Gross at Generation) 5,548,536
C&l Energy Efficiency First Year Savings kWhNr (at Site) 5,082,293
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Portfolio Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kwh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kwh)
3.341 1.173
$ 0.0803
$0.0000232
1.376
$ 0.0622
1.066
$ 0.0803
1.296
$ 0.0762
$ 0.0000178
0.582
0.794 1.655 1.178
$ 0.0762
1.813
$ 0.0493
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs and Activity
Home Energy Savings Program (Schedule 118)
The Home Energy Savings program (Schedule 118) provides a broad framework to deliver
incentives for more efficient products and services installed or received by Idaho customers in
new or existing homes, multi-family housing units or manufactured homes. The program is
delivered through a third party administrator hired by the Company. Program information is
available to the public at the program's web site at
htt~://www.homeener~~savin~s.net/Idaho/idaho home.htm1 and can also be accessed through
htt~://www.rockymountainpower.net/env/epi.html, the Company's Idaho energy efficiency
program website.
Summary of the program results for 201 1 are provided in the table below:
Table 9: Home Energy Savings Program Performance
kWhNr Savings (Gross - At Gen) 2,651,341
kWhNr Savings (At Site) 2,411,296
Expenditures $ 61 3,890
Incentives Paid $ 227,658
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kwh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kwh) $0.00001 17
2.507 1.446
0.0656
2.045
0.0422
1.315
0.0656
0.681
Details of 201 1 measure level participation and savings are provided on the following table:
Table 10: Home Energy Savings Measure Performance
kW hlYr
unit Savings
Measure (Gross - At
Home Energy Savings Measures ment # of Units Participants Site)
Clothes Washer-Tier One (1.72 - I .99 MEF) Units 14 14 3,188
Clothes Washer-Tier Two (2.0 + MEF) Units 1,165 1,165 283,193
Clothes Was her Recycling Units 0 0 0
Dishwasher Units 316 31 6 12,881
Evaporatiw Cooler (Portable) Units 0 0 0
Evaporatiw Coolers (Permanently Installed) Units 3 3 975
Electric Water Heater Units 58 58 5,261
Room AC Units 0 0 0
Refrigerator Units 350 350 34,125
Insulation -Attic sq feet 88,673 8 3 136,974
Insulation - Floor sq feet 969 3 6.439
Insulation -Wall sq feet 3,823 5 4.949
Wtndows sq feet 9,037 63 16,475
CAC (1 5 SEER) Projects 2 2 192
CAC Install Units 0 0 0
CAC Sizing Units 1 1 67
CAC Tune-up Projects 1 1 30
Duct Sealing - Electric Projects 0 0 0
Duct Sealing - Gas Projects 0 0 0
Heat Pump Upgrade Projects 2 2 1,622
Heat Pump Conwrsion Units 4 4 12.588
HP Tune up Units 1 1 576
Ceiling Fans Units 17 11 1,819
Fixtures Units 110 40 10.1 20
CFL-Specialty Units 1,220 122 41,146
CFL-Twister Units 53,616 5,362 1,838,678
Totals 159,382 7,606 2.41 1,296
kWhNr Savings at Generation 2,651,341
(Note: CFL participation is assumed at 10 CFLs per participant.)
Major Trends and Activities
The Home Energy Savings program savings in 201 1 decreased 78 percent in non-CFL measures
but increased 114 percent in CFL measures. This resulted in an overall decrease of 28 percent as
compared to 20 1 0.
The largest decrease in non-CFL participation was seen in weatherization measures. The
contractor feedback indicated that overall sales were down compared to 2010 due to economic
instability and very mild summer weather. Additionally, appliance sales slowed after the
exhaustion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds.
Special per bulb CFL pricing was instituted in 201 1 which contributed to the achievement of 100
percent of lighting goals in Idaho by the end of the year. The program also partnered with Fluid
Market Strategies and the regional Simple Steps program that helped contribute to increased
savings of 8 16,000 kwh, which represents nearly 4 1 percent of lighting savings for 20 1 1.
A marketing campaign, which provided incentives to the sales associates in order to drive
customer participation, was conducted in the last quarter of 201 1. The campaign's goal was to
promote appliance measures such as dishwashers, clothes washers and refrigerators and resulted
in a total of 135 applications received from the top retailers such as Sears, Denning's, and Home
Depot. This promotion contributed significantly to appliance savings for the program. A similar
promotion will be considered again in 20 12.
Cost Effectiveness
The program was cost effective from all perspectives except the Ratepayer Impact Test.
Appendix 1 provides detailed inputs used in the cost effectiveness analysis of this program.
Program Evaluation
See comments under the Program Evaluation heading in the 201 1 Performance and Activities
section of this report for evaluation activities related to this program.
Plans for 2012
The program is focusing on targeted retailer outreach in 2012, as six retailers in Idaho account
for 80 percent of appliance redemptions. Program staff is also focusing on the Qualified
Weatherization Contractor Network and bringing new trade allies onto the program. By co-
branding, placing product, and co-sponsoring promotions, the program expects to increase
participation.
See ya later, refrigerator8 (Schedule 117)
The Residential Refrigerator Recycling Program (Schedule 1 17) is available to Idaho residential
customers through a Company contracted third-party program administrator. Older refrigerators
and freezers which are less efficient, yet operational, are taken out of use permanently and
recycled in an environmentally responsible manner. The program's objective is to permanently
retire these older and less efficient refrigerators and freezers from the market and recycle the
units in order to avoid their re-entry or resale on the secondary appliance market. Program
awareness is generated through mass media advertising channels as well as Company
communications such as the program's web site, bill stuffers, and customer newsletters. In
addition to free pick-up and a nominal cash incentive, participants receive an energy efficiency
packet consisting of two ENERGY STAR@-certified compact fluorescent light bulbs, a
refrigeratorlfreezer thermometer, and energy education materials.
A summary of the program results for 201 1 are provided in the table below.
Table 11: See ya later, refrigerator0 Program Performance
Details of 201 1 measure level participation and savings are provided on the following table:
kWh Savings (Gross - At Gen) 1,037,069
kWh Savings (At Site) 943,176
Expenditures $ 107,033
Incentives Paid $ 21,300
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Table 12: See ya later, refrigerator0 Results
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($lkWh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($AM) $0.000006024
Total (At ene era ti on) 1 1,037,069
Gross Savings
(kW hNr)
622,758
Refrigerator
Recycling Measure
Refrigerator
Freezer
Total Units Recycled
Energy Savings Kits
0.579 1.594
0.0464
1.945
0.041 8
N A 1.768
0.041 8
Unit Count
542
168
710
658
Per Unit Savings
(kWhNr)
1,149
I Total (At Site) 943,176
1,590
81
267,120
889,878
53,298
Major Trends and Activities
Program participation in 201 1 decreased approximately 10 percent from 2010 (in terms of unit
volumes). A direct mail campaign in October involved approximately 20,000 pieces, and
resulted in strong 4 4 program activity.
Environmental Attributes
In terms of the impact of the program on the environment, processing the 710 harvested units
resulted in the recycling of more than 44 tons of metal, 7 tons of plastics, 1 ton of tempered
glass, the recovery or destruction of more than 300 lbs of refrigerant, and the destruction of more
than 400 and 100 lbs of CFC-11 and HCFC-141 b, respectively, contained in foam insulation.
Cost Effectiveness
The 201 1 See ya later, refrigerator@ program was cost effective from all perspectives except the
Ratepayer Impact Test. Appendix 1 provides detailed inputs used in the cost effectiveness
analysis of this program.
Program Evaluation
See comments under the Program Evaluation heading in the 201 1 Performance and Activities
section of this report for evaluation activities related to this program.
Plans for 2012
Goals in 2012 call for 1,000 units to be collected and recycled. Based on successful experiences
in late 2010 and late 201 1, direct mail will be used again in the May-June time frame. The retail
element, begun in 201 1 at national chains such as Sears and Best Buy, will be expanded to
include R.C. Willey and stand-alone "mom and pop" stores. In addition, cross promotional
opportunities with the Home Energy Savings program will be used in retail stores (e.g., through
point-of-sale flyer placements).
Low Income Weatherization (Schedule 21)
The Low Income Weatherization Services program (Schedule 21) is available through a
partnership with Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership (EICAP) in Idaho Falls and South
Eastern Idaho Community Action Agency (SEICAA) in Pocatello. These partnerships allow for
leveraging of Company funding with federal grants available to EICAP and SEICAA, increasing
the number of homes served. Rocky Mountain Power's funding in 201 1 provided rebates that
covered 85 percent of the cost of approved energy efficiency measures.
Income eligible households receive energy efficiency services at no cost. Participants can be
either homeowners or renters residing in single-family homes, manufactured homes and
apartments.
Table 13 summarizes the program results for 201 1. Program expenditures totaled $253,809.
Funds received by the agency from other sources (state or federal funding) are not included.
Rocky Mountain Power's program provided funding towards the weatherization of 100
qualifling homes in 201 1 with an average program cost per home of $2,538.
Table 13: Low Income Weatherization Performance
Major Trends and Activities
Weatherization completions in 20 1 1 more than doubled compared to 2010 program activities.
The Low Income Weatherization Program tariff was revised as of December 28, 2010,
increasing the Company's reimbursement from 75 percent of costs on approved measures to 85
percent, and annual funding was increased from $150,000 to $300,000.
25
- -
kWhIyr Savings (At Site) 228,605
kWh/yr Savings (Gross - At Gen) 251,363
Eqenditures $ 253,809
Incentives Paid $ 182,479
Participation -Total # of CompletedlTreated Homes 100
Number of Homes Receiving Specific Measures
Ceiling Insulation 37
Floor Insulation 30
Wall Insulation 6
Duct InsulattonlSealing 9
Attic Ventilation 29
Infiltration 57
Water Pipe Insulation and Sealing 88
Water Heater Repair 5
Water Heater Replacement 1
Furnace Repairrune-up 36
Furnace Replacement 6
Health & Safety 43
Replacement Windows 37
Thermal Doors 36
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) 97
Number of Specific Measures
Replacement Refrigerator 13
Total Program Costs PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($M)
0.817
0.1263
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kWh) $ 0.000005332
Results without additional data request costs PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
0.429
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kWn)
NIA 0.742
0.1263
0.742
0.1263
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kWh) $ 0.000004542
0.957
0.1078
0.469 NIA 0.870
0.1078
0.870
0.1078
Cost Effectiveness
An evaluation of Low Income Weatherization Services Optional for Income Qualifying
Customers program was completed in 201 1 by a third party administrator for program years
2007 through 2009.
The Company recognizes the importance of the Low Income Weatherization Program and the
benefit to the customers by reducing kwh usage and helping to make participant's bills more
affordable, as well as increasing their comfort. However, as described in the Low-Income
Weatherization program evaluation, due to many factors the third party evaluator determined that
the program was not cost-effective.
Program Evaluation
See comments under the Program Evaluation heading in the 201 1 Performance and Activities
section of this report for evaluation activities related to this program.
Plans for 2012
We anticipate 20 12 weatherization completions will be fairly consistent with 20 1 1 results.
Conservation Education
Rocky Mountain Power committed to provide a total of $50,000 for an energy education
component for the Low Income Weatherization program (Schedule 21). This commitment was
made through a stipulation dated April 16, 2009, in Case No. PAC-E-08-01. The Company
provided $7,500 in funds for energy efficiency kits to be distributed through the Conservation
Education component in May, 2010, and a total of $42,500 in May, 201 1 to Eastern Idaho
Community Action Partnership (EICAP) and South Eastern Idaho Community Action Agency
(SEICAA) to cover their expenses in providing these services.
The Conservation Education is designed to provide a group education session and an in-home
education session to participants, as well as an energy efficiency kit with easy-install measures.
The energy efficiency kits include one 13 watt CFL, one 19 watt CFL, one 23 watt CFL, ten
outlet gaskets, one kitchen aerator, one refrigerator temperature card and one luminescent night
light. The agencies began offering these services in May, 201 1.
A total of 168 households completed the conservation education component in 201 1. Since it is
designed to reach 500 households with the $50,000 funding, it is very likely these conservation
education services will continue through 20 12 with the monies provided in 20 10 and 20 1 1.
Table 12 summarizes the program results for 2011. No savings are reported from behavioral
changes that may have resulted from the education sessions.
Table 14: Conservation Education
k M / y Savings (At Site) 22,848
kWh/yr Savings (Gross - At Gen) 25,123
Expenditures
Completed households
Major Trends and Activities
The development of the curriculum and implementation of the conservation education
component for Rocky Mountain Power customers was delayed as staff from the Community
Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI), EICAP and SEICAA were focusing on the
implementation of the Idaho Power education program. These services were offered to our
customers beginning in May, 201 1.
Plans for 2012
We anticipate that 2012 Conservation Education completions will be approximately the same as
in 201 1 or greater. As of December 31, 201 1, there were 332 kits remaining of the 500 Rocky
Mountain Power funded in 20 10.
Non-Residential Energy Efficiency Programs and Activity
Energy FinAnswer (Schedule 125)
The Energy FinAnswer program is offered to commercial (buildings 20,000 square feet and
larger) and industrial customers. The program provides Company-funded energy engineering,
incentives of $0.12 per kwh of first year energy savings and $50 per kW of average monthly
demand savings up to a cap of 50 percent of the approved project cost. The program is designed
to target comprehensive projects requiring project specific energy savings analysis and operates
as a complement to the more streamlined FinAnswer Express program. In addition to customer
incentives, the program provides design team honorariums (a finder fee for new projects) and
design team incentives for new construction projects exceeding current Idaho energy code by at
least 10 percent.
A summary of the program results are provided in the table below:
Table 15: Energy FinAnswer Program
Details of 201 1 savings by type of measure are provided on the following table:
Table 16: Energy FinAnswer by Measure Type
kWhffr Savings (Gross - At Gen) 532,135
kWhffr Savings (At Site) 487,927
Expenditures $ 154,367
Incentives Paid $ 42,932
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Energy FinAnswer kWhNr Savings (at site) by Measure Type
Compressed Air 128,051 26%
Lighting 14,241 3%
Motors 302,120 62%
Refrigeration 43,515 9%
487,927
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kwh) $0.000001 387
1.657
0.0563
1.928
0.0440
1.507
0.0563
0.857 2.61 5
Major Trends and Activities
A total of 18 Energy FinAnswer projects were completed in 201 1 compared to 10 in 2010.
Program specific energy savings decreased 67 percent and expenditures decreased 58 percent
during 201 1 compared to 2010. The Company continues to market the program through its
Customer and Community Managers and network of trade allies in concert with the FinAnswer
Express program.
Cost Effectiveness
The 2011 Energy FinAnswer program was cost effective from all perspectives except the
Ratepayer Impact Test. Appendix 1 provides detailed inputs used in the cost effectiveness
analysis of this program.
Program Evaluation
See comments under the Program Evaluation heading in the 201 1 Performance and Activities
section of this report for evaluation activities related to this program.
Plans for 2012
Continue to monitor actual and forecasted participation and assess the potential impacts of
program modifications similar to those implemented in other markets.
FinAnswer Express (Schedule 115)
The FinAnswer Express program (Schedule 115) is available to Idaho business customers
excluding those served on Schedule 10, which are eligible for program services through the
Irrigation Energy Savers program. The FinAnswer Express program is available to help
customers improve the efficiency of their new or replacement lighting, HVAC, motors, building
envelope and other equipment by providing prescriptive or pre-defined incentives for the most
common efficiency measures listed in the program incentive tables. The program also includes
custom incentives and technical analysis services for measures not listed in the program
incentive tables that improve electric energy efficiency. The program is designed to operate in
conjunction with the Energy FinAnswer program. Although incentives available vary, the
program provides incentives for both new construction and retrofit projects.
The program is primarily marketed through local trade allies who receive support from Company
provided sales and training team. The lists of participating vendors posted on the Company
website include 21 lighting, 32 HVAC, 27 motor, and 4 other equipment trade allies.
A summary of the program results are provided in the table below:
Table 17: FinAnswer Express program7
Details of 201 1 savings by type of measure are provided on the following table:
Table 18: FinAnswer Express by Measure Type
kWhNr Savings (Gross -At Gen) 2,442,275
kWhNr Savings (At Site) 2,233,973
Expenditures $700,723
Incentives Paid $356,726
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Lighting 1,584,337 7 1 %
Non-Lighting 649,636 29%
2,233,973
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
7 Savings and expenditures from school projects completed under the Idaho Office of Energy Resources Energy
Efficiency Incentives Agreement were removed from the PTRC, TRC and PCT cost effectiveness calculations and
results. See Appendix 1.
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kwh) $ 0.00001 55022
1.624 1.175
0.0816
1.868
0.0466
1.068
0.081 6
0.732
Major Trends and Activities
Participation from customers in the government and education sectors was strong in 201 1,
accounting for almost 70 percent of program's energy savings.
On May 3, 2011, Rocky Mountain Power provided lighting and mechanical/non-lighting
program training in combination with the Northwest Trade Ally Network (NW Tan) with
technical lighting training in Idaho Falls. Forty- one individuals attended the program training.
Cost Effectiveness
The program was cost effective from all perspectives except the Ratepayer Impact Test.
Appendix 1 provides detailed inputs and assumptions used in the cost effectiveness analysis of
this program.
Program Evaluation
See comments under the Program Evaluation heading in the 201 1 Performance and Activities
section of this report for evaluation activities related to this program.
Plans for 2012
The Company plans to continue to provide marketing and trade ally outreach to target customers
with T12 fluorescent lighting to provide information on changes in federal lighting standards
coming on July 14, 2012. Site outreach is continuing for trade allies with more resources and
field staff visiting the area including lighting technical specialists and non-lighting mechanical
outreach trade ally coordinators. These field visits are specifically designed to support the local
trade allies with project closure and processing the applications for incentives.
Agricultural Energy Services (Schedule 155)
Agricultural Energy Services, marketed as Irrigation Energy Savers (Schedule 155), was
available in 201 1 to Idaho irrigation customers taking retail service on Schedule 10 through a
Company contracted third-party program administrator. The program design is intended to be the
energy efficiency complement to the Irrigation Load Control programs offered under Schedules
72 & 72A.
The 201 1 program included the following customer service and measure components:
Equipment Exchange - Provides new standard sprinkler nozzles, gaskets, and drains to
replace worn equipment on hand lines, wheel lines and solid set sprinklers systems.
Pivot and Linear Equipment Upgrades - Incentives are provided for certain pivot and
linear system measures including sprinkler packages, pressure regulators, and drains. The
list of prescriptive incentives is not designed to be exhaustive and other pivot measures
are eligible for incentives if energy savings can be calculated and the customer incurs
costs to make the changes.
System Consultation - This service provides a simple site specific audit of a customer's
irrigation system to promote irrigation water management and identify energy savings
opportunities. This consultation provides information prior to a full pump test.
Pump Testing - The pump test includes directly measuring pump lift, flow, pressure, and
electrical demand and is performed after the pump has been screened and the owner's
financial investment criteria understood.
System Analysis - The program provides energy engineering to help growers quantify
the costs and savings of their system efficiency upgrades. Often these upgrade decisions
are made in conjunction with operational production change considerations impacting a
growers equipment needs. Incentives are based on a standard formula tied to costs and
first year energy savings.
A summary of the program results for 201 1 are provided in the table below.
Table 19: Agricultural Energy Services Program
kWhffr Savings (Gross - At Gen) 2,574,126
kWhffr Savings (At Site) 2,360,393
Expenditures $ 490,980
Incentives Paid $ 224,890
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
Program Cost Effectiveness
Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Lifecycle Revenue Impact ($/kWh: $ 0.0000046450
1.506
-
1.381
0.0757
1.255
0.0757
1.743
0.0545
0.899
Details of 201 1 savings by type of measure are provided on the following table:
Table 20: Agricultural Energy Savers by ~easure'
Agricultural Energy Savers kWhNr Savings by Measure Type (at Site)
Equipment Exchange & PivotRinear Upgrade 1,697,132 72%
System Design 663,259 28%
2,360,391
Major Trends and Activities
The 201 1 savings and expenses were 6 percent and 23 percent, respectively, lower compared to
201 0 program savings and expenditures.
During 20 1 1, 10 1 site visits were completed to obtain system information used in either a system
consultation or an energy analysis evaluation as a part of the Agricultural Energy Services
Program. During the same year, 21 post installation inspections were completed to verify project
installation and energy savings.
The following outreach and event activities were completed for the program in 201 1 :
Maintained a booth at the Eastern Idaho Ag. Expo and Potato School January 18 - 20, to
promote the program and provide program information to customers.
Maintained a booth and met with customers at the Rain For Rent customer appreciation
day in Idaho Falls on February 24.
Maintained a booth and met with customers at the Valley Implement customer
appreciation day in Preston on February 24.
Met with each of the program participating dealers and provided a summary report of
incentives provided to their customers through the program, provided updated program
applications and information, and answered program related questions.
Cost Effectiveness
The program was cost effective from all perspectives except the Ratepayer Impact Test.
Appendix 1 provides detailed inputs and assumptions used in the cost effectiveness analysis of
this program.
Program Evaluation
See comments under the Program Evaluation heading in the 201 1 Performance and Activities
section of this report for evaluation activities related to this program.
Table totals may not add up exactly due to rounding
Summary of 2011 Results
Table 21: Revenues (Schedule 191) by Customer Type
Industrial ~3rrrih 27.6%
1 Publlc - Street 8
'iighway
0.5%
F
fwibdai
Table 22: Expenditures (Schedule 191) by Custolner Type
I
rote - Table 22 does not include Irrigation Load )
Table 23: Energy Efficiency kwh Saved by Customer Type
Industrial
Irrigation
27%
I
Balancing Account Summary
Energy efficiency and peak reduction activities are funded by revenue collected through
Schedule 191, Customer Efficiency Services Rate on customer bills. Expenses for energy
efficiency programs are charged as incurred and booked to the balancing account. The
balancing account activity for 201 1 is outlined in the table below.
Table 24: Balancing Account Activity (Schedule 191)
Balance as of 12/31 M 0
$ 3,845,843
Accrual Basis
Monthly Program Carrying Cash Basis Accumulated
Cost - Fixed Assets Accrued Costs Rate Recovery Charge Accumulated Balance Balance
January $ 94,913.02 - $ (418,081.55) $ 3,070.00 $ 3,525,744.00
February $ 222,587.37 - $ (338,071.76) $ 2,890.00 $ 3,413,149.61
March $ 242,913.84 - $ (310,853.16) $ 2,816.00 $ 3,348,026.29
&ril $ 213,813.93 - $ (284,248.86) $ 2,761.00 $ 3,280,352.36
May $ 174,180.12 - $ (351,043.79) $ 2,660.00 $ 3,106,148.69
June $ 193,591.58 - $ (455,326.01) $ 2,479.00 $ 2,846,893.26
July $ 138,269.01 - $ (785,015.77) $ 2,103.00 $ 2,202,249.50
August $ 220,093.03 - $ (719,628.69) $ 1,627.00 $ 1,704,340.84
September $ 184,203.33 - $ (570,028.01) $ 1,260.00 $ 1,319,776.16
October $ 103,080.76 - $ (389,845.34) $ 980.00 $ 1,033,991.58
No~mber $ 255,997.43 - $ (353,022.44) $ 821 .OO $ 937,787.57
December $ 626,340.83 380,980.18 $ (381,809.72) $ 883.00 $ 1,183,201.68 1,564,181.86
201 0 totals $ 2,669,984.25 $ 380,980.18 $ (5,356,975.1 0) $ 24,350.00
Column Explanations:
Monthly Program Costs - Fixed Assets: Monthly expenditures for all energy efficiency and peak reduction
program activities.
Accrued Costs: Program costs incurred during the period not yet posted.
Rate Recoverv: Revenue collected through Schedule 191, Customer Efficiency Service Rate.
Carving Charge: Monthly "interest" charge based on "Accumulated Balance" of the account. The current
"interest rate" for the Accumulated Balance is 1 percent per year.
Accumulated Balance: Current balance of the account. A running total of account activities. If more is
collected in "Revenue" than is spent for a given month, the "Accumulated Balance" will be decreased by
the net amount. A negative accumulative balance means cumulative revenue exceeds cumulative
expenditures; positive accumulative balance means cumulative expenditures exceed cumulative revenue.
Accrual Basis Accumulative Balance: Current balance of account including accrued costs.
At the beginning of 201 1, the unfunded balance was approximately $3.846 million and decreased
by approximately $2.282 million during the year. The unfunded balance at the end of 201 1 is
$1.564 million which includes the accrued cost.
Cost Effectiveness
Introduction
The cost effectiveness of individual programs operated by the Company for 201 1 are calculated
using actual expenditures and reported savings. Cost-effectiveness is provided at the individual
program, load management portfolio, residential energy efficiency portfolio, non-residential
energy efficiency portfolio, combined energy efficiency portfolio, and overall energy efficiency
and peak reduction program portfolio levels. Deemed savings estimates where applicable were
the same as those used in the planning estimates.
Energy savings shown in this report are gross savings and the impact of line losses is indicated
with an at "site" or at "generation" designation. Line losses are based on the Company's 2007
line loss study. Net-to-gross assumptions are consistent with planning estimates. The energy
savings attributed to each program are shaped according to specific end-use savings (the hourly
calculation of when energy is used for the various end-use measures from which the savings are
derived). Program costs and the value of the energy savings are then compared on a present
value basis with the Company's 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) calculated decrement
values for energy efficiency resource savings and avoided capacity investments. The energy
efficiency resource decrement values are fully shaped to represent the 8,760 hourly values that
exist within a calendar year. By matching the hourly savings with the hourly avoided costs, both
energy and capacity impacts of energy efficiency savings are recognized.
The costbenefit analysis of the load management programs are based on the avoided value of
peak or capacity investments. For purposes of calculating program cost-effectiveness no energy
savings are included for the load management programs, only a shift of when the energy is used
away from the peak load hours. The five California Standard Practice Manual cost effectiveness
tests were utilized in the cost benefit analysis for both energy efficiency and load management
programs. Further details are available in Appendix 1.
Key Assumptions for Cost Effectiveness Calculations:
Cost Effectiveness calculations for programs and measures (or measure groups) within each
program will be detailed in the tables in Appendix 1.
Global Assumptions used in all cost effectiveness calculations include:
Assumption Value Source
Discount Rate 7.17% 20 1 1 Integrated Resource Plan
Line Losses (Idaho Specific)
Residential 9.955% 2007 MAC Line Loss Study
Commercial 9.326% 2007 MAC Line Loss Study
Industrial 9.055% 2007 MAC Line Loss Study
Key elements that go into the cost effectiveness calculation for each program include:
KWIkWh Savings Gross
Administrative Expenses
Incentives Paid
Total Utility Costs - including administration and evaluation
Gross Customer Costs
Net To Gross Ratio
Measure Life
Avoided Cost/Resource Decrement Value
Please reference Appendix 1, Cost Effectiveness 201 1 Idaho Energy Efficiency and Peak
Reduction Annual Report for additional information on the key assumptions and inputs for cost
effectiveness calculations for each program.
Appendices:
Appendix 1 - Cost Effectiveness 20 1 1 Idaho Energy Efficiency and Peak Reduction
Annual Report
Appendix 2 - 201 1 Idaho Irrigation Post Peak Report
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER 7 A DIVISION OF PAClFlCORP
Appendix 1
Cost Effectiveness
201 1 Idaho Energy Efficiency and Peak
Reduction Annual Report
Rocky Mountain Power
Revised August 3,20 1 2
Table of Contents
Portfolio and Sector Level Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................... 3
Program Level Cost Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 5
Home Energy Savings Program . Schedule 1 18 ........................................................................ 5
Refrigerator Recycling (See ya later. refrigerator@) . Schedule 1 17 ......................................... 6
Low Income Weatherization . Schedule 21 ............................................................................... 7
Energy FinAnswer . Schedule 125 ............................................................................................. 9
FinAnswer Express . Schedule 1 15 ......................................................................................... 10
Agricultural Energy Services (Irrigation Energy Savers) . Schedule 155 ............................... 12
Portfolio and Sector Level Cost Effectiveness
The overall energy efficiency and peak reduction portfolio and component sectors were all cost
effective on a PacifiCorp Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC), Total Resource Cost Test (TRC),
Utility Cost Test (UCT), Ratepayer Impact Test (RIM) and Participant Cost Test (PCT) basis.
Decrement values are considered confidential on load control programs. Cost effectiveness ratios
and inputs will be available under a protective agreement. A "Pass" designation equates to a
benefit to cost ratio of 1 or better.
The following table provides the results of all five cost effectiveness tests.
2011 Portfolio and Sector Cost Effectiveness Summary
l ~ o s t Effectiveness Test
PTRC TRC UCT RIM PCT
201 1 Total Portfolio including Load Control 4.348 3.953 2.224 1.735 4.937
201 1 Total Energy Efficiency Portfolio 1.240 1.127 1.611 0.694 2.166
201 1 C&I Energy Efficiency Portfolio 1.296 1.178 1.813 0.794 1.655
201 1 Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio 1.173 1.066 1.376 0.582 3.341
20 1 1 Irrigation Load Control Pass Pass Pass Pass NA
Sector and Program Level Cost Effectiveness Summaries:
The cost effectiveness results for the sector level are aggregations of the costs and benefits from
the component programs. The inputs and assumptions that support these results are contained in
the program level cost effectiveness results.
2011 Total Portfolio Energy Efficiency
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) No
Adder
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
0.0783
I Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kwh) I
0.0550
$0.0000360157 1
$3,344,424
$2,531,717
$5,876,251
$2,191,770
$3,770,291
$4,077,333
$4,077,333
$4,746,620
$425,867 1.127
$1,545,617
($1,798,918)
$2,554,850
1.611
0.694
2.166
201 1 Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio
201 1 C&I Energy Efficiency Portfolio
I Utility Cost Test (UCT) 0.0493 1 $1,358,529 1 $2,462,606 1 $1,104,077 1 1.813 1
1.296
1.178
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) No
Adder
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kwh)
0.0762
0.0762
$3,100,143
$1,527,679
$1,830,179
$1,830,179
$2,462,606
$2,527,670
$2,371,120
$2,155,564
$540,941
$325,385
($637,537)
$999,991
$0.00001 78050
0.794
1.655
Program Level Cost Effectiveness
Home Energy Savings Program - Schedule 118
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the Idaho Home Energy Savings
program based on Rocky Mountain Power's 2011 costs and savings estimates. The Utility
discount rate is from the 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Cost-effectiveness was tested using the 201 1 IRP 35% east residential whole house load factor
decrement.
Table 1: Home Energy Savings
Annual Program Costs
Appliance
Home Improvement
HVAC
Table 2: Home Energy Savings
Savings by Measure Type
I I ,
Table 3: IRP 35% Load Factor Decrement
$223,881
$104,971
$9.600
$568,716 Total
$25,347
$1 1,885
$1.087
$346,951
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kwh)
Discounted Participant Payback (years)
$136,216
$36,119
$2.950
$39,281 1 $227,658 1 $613,890
$641,798
($588,201)
$1,000,644
$0.00001 17762
1.96
2.045
0.681
2.507
0.0422
$385,444
$1 52,974
$13.637
$267,439
$44,886
$8,436
$613,890
$1,843,888
$664,090
$1,255,687
$1,255,687
$1,664,734
Refrigerator Recycling (See ya later, refrigerator@) - Schedule 117
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the Idaho See-Ya-Later Refrigerator
program based on Rocky Mountain Power's 2011 costs and savings estimates. The Utility
discount rate is from the 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Cost-effectiveness was tested using the 201 1 IRP 35% east residential whole house load factor
decrement.
Table 1: See-Ya-Later
Annual Program Costs
Table 2: See-Ya-Later
Savings by Measure Type
Table 3: IRP 35% Load Factor Decrement
Low Income Weatherization - Schedule 21
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the Idaho Low Income
Weatherization program based on Rocky Mountain Power's 201 1 costs and savings estimates.
The Utility discount rate is from the 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Cost-effectiveness was tested using the 201 1 medium IRP 35% east residential whole house load
factor decrement. The results for a second scenario with reduced evaluation costs are also
presented below.
Table 1: Low Income Weatherization
Annual Program Costs
I Low Income weatherization I $15.941 1 $18.240 1 $37.150 1 $182.479 1 $253,809 1 $0 I
Table 2: Low Income Weatherization
Annual Program Costs - Reduced Data Request Costs
I Low Income weatherization I $15,941 1 $18,240 1 $7 1 $182,479 1 $216,666 1
Table 3: Low Income Weatherization
Savings by Measure Type
I Low Income weatherization I 228,605 1 65% 1 148,593 1 100% 1 148,593 1 25.00 1
Table 4: Low Income Weatherization
0.742
0.429
NIA
($65,379)
($250,568)
$185,189
$0.0000053322
NIA
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kwh)
Discounted Participant Payback (years)
0.1263 $253,809
$438,998
$0
$188,430
$188,430
$185,189
Table 5: Low Income Weatherization with Reduced Data Request Costs
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) No Adder
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kwh)
Discounted Participant Payback (years)
0.1078
0.1078
0.1078
$216,666
$216,666
$216,666
$401,855
$0
$207,273
$188,430
$188,430
$188,430
$185,189
($9,393)
($28,236)
($28,236)
($213,425)
$185,189
$0.0000045418
NIA
0.957
0.870
0.870
0.469
NIA
Energy FinAnswer - Schedule 125
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the Idaho Energy FinAnswer program
based on Rocky Mountain Power's 201 1 costs and savings estimates. The Utility discount rate is
from the 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Cost-effectiveness was tested using the 201 1 IRP 69% east system load factor decrement.
Table 1: Energy FinAnswer
Annual Program Costs
I Commercial 1 $0 I $10,531 1 $5.057 1 $1,547 1 $1,167 1 $18,303 1 $3,688 1 I Industrial $0 I $67,564 1 $22,954 1 $3,781 1 $41,765 1 $136,064 1 $82,447 1
Total I $0 I $78,095 1 $28,012 1 $5,328 1 $42,932 1 $154,367 1 $86,135 1
Table 2: Energy FinAnswer
Savings by Measure Type
I Total 1 487.927 1 91% 1 444.014 1 75% 1 333.010 1 I
Commercial
Table 3: IRP 69% Load Factor Decrement
9,727 1 91% 1 8,852 1 75% 1 6,639 1 15
Industrial 478.200 1 91% 1 435.162 1 75% 1 326,372 1 15
FinAnswer Express - Schedule 115
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the Idaho FinAnswer Express
program based on Rocky Mountain Power's 201 1 costs and savings estimates. The Utility
discount rate is from the 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Cost-effectiveness was tested using the 201 1 IRP 69% east system load factor decrement.
Table la: FinAnswer Express
Annual Program Costs - RIM and UCT Perspectives
I Industrial I $1,298 1 $4,051 1 $8.165 1 $52,362 1 $2,034 1 $67,910 1 $5,820 1
I Total I $1.480 1 $71.113 1 $52.809 1 $218.595 1 $356.726 1 $700.723 1 $1.317.334 1
Table lb: FinAnswer Express
Annual Program Costs - PTRC, TRC, and PCT Perspectives
I Industrial I $1.298 1 $4.051 1 $8.165 1 $52.362 1 $2.034 1 $67,910 1 $5,820 1
Total I $1,480 1 $71,113 1 $42,318 1 $179,530 1 $280,472 1 $574,913 1 $644,046 1
Table 2a: FinAnswer Express
Savings by Measure Type - RIM and UCT Perspectives
I Commercial 1 2.219.662 1 96% 1 2.130.876 1 76% 1 1.619.465 1 12 1
Table 2b: FinAnswer Express
Savings by Measure Type - PTRC, TRC, and PCT Perspectives
Industrial
Total
I Commercial 1 1.695.962 1 96% 1 1.628.124 1 76% 1 1.237.374 1 12 1
I Industrial 1 14.311 1 96% 1 13.739 1 76% 1 10.441 1 12 1
14,311
2,233,973
Total 1 1,710,273 1 1 1,641,862 1 1 1,247,815 1
96% 13,739
2,144,614
76% 10,441
1,629,907
12
Table 3: IRP 69% Load Factor Decrement
Cost Effectiveness Inputs at the Measure Level
Rocky Mountain Power and Idaho Office of Energy Resources (OER) has an Energy Efficiency
Incentive Agreement in place for completion of public school projects. The Agreement provides
for a cooperative relationship to maximize the use of federal funding to promote and execute
additional cost effective energy efficiency measures in public schools within the Company's
territory. Because the participant costs reflected total project costs which included non
incentivized measures from the Company. All associated costs and energy savings from the
school programs were removed from cost effectiveness tests for PTRC, TRC and PCT
perspectives
Agricultural Energy Services (Irrigation Energy Savers) - Schedule 155
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the Idaho Agriculture program based
on Rocky Mountain Power's 201 1 costs and savings estimates. The Utility discount rate is from
the 201 1 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Cost-effectiveness was tested using the 201 1 medium IRP 20% east system commercial cooling
load factor decrement.
Table 1: Agriculture
Annual Program Costs
I I Equipment Exchange &
PivotlLinear U~arade
Table 2: Agriculture
Savings by Measure Type
Equipment Exchange &
PivotlLinear u~arade 1 1,697,132 1 100% 1 1,697,132 1
Table 3: IRP 20% Commercial Cooling Load Factor Decrement
System Design
Total
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC) +
Conservation Adder 1 0.0757 1 $681.662 1 $941.267 / $259.605 1 1.381 1
I Total Resource Cost Test (TRCI No Adder 1 0.0757 1 $681.662 1 $855.697 1 $174.035 1 1.255 1
663,259
2,360,391
. , I Utilitv Cost Test (UCT) 1 0.0545 1 $490.980 1 $855.697 1 $364.718 1 1.743 1
100%
I Lifecycle Revenue Impacts ($/kwh) 1 $0.0000046450 1
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
663,259
2,360,391
$951,431 1 $855,697 1 ($95,734) 1 0.899
I Discounted Participant Payback (years)
74%
Participant Cost Test [PCTI
2.82 1
$565.404 1 $851.354 1 $285.950 1 1.506
487,495
1,734,888
7.00