20031128Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider Program Impact Evaluation Report for 2003.pdf

HECEIVED (1)
'q I
;;
:. i eo
inn3 tin" 28 AM 9: I.; Q
825 N.E. Mu/tnomah
Portland, Oregon 97232
[phone]
fAC-- E: -03 -03
PACIFICORP
0 ' '., ".,
, ,"' '
' U',L ! l.,
UT\L\':r\ES COMMiSSION
PACIFIC POWER UTAH POWER
November 28, 2003
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, ill 83702-5983
Attention:Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
Re:Idaho 2003 Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider Program Impact Evaluation
Report
Pacificorp (d.a. Utah Power & Light Company) hereby submits an original and eight copies of
the Idaho 2003 Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider Program Impact Evaluation Report.
The purpose of this filing is to comply with Commission Order No. 29209 where in the
Company was directed to submit a report at the end of the 2003 irrigation season summarizing
the results of Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider program (Program). The required Program
evaluation is provided herein as Attachment A.
Also in compliance with Commission Order No. 29209 the Company recommends the following
changes to improve the program. The intent ofthese recommendations is twofold: (1)
streamline the enrollment process and (2) mitigate potential customer concerns that may have
limited customer participation in the 2003 Program.
The Company proposes to:
1. Provide customers with a Load Control Service Agreement by January 15th of each year
together with the Load Control Service Credit notification (the credit the customer would
receive should they elect to participate). The Load Control Service Agreement will
include the amount of credit the customer would receive during the upcoming irrigation
season if participation is elected.
2. Require that customers sign and return the Load Control Service Agreement by Februaryth of
each year to indicate their intention to participate in the Program.
3. Notify participating customers of the scheduled hours for load control during the
irrigation season by March 15th of each calendar year.
4. Permit participating customers to notify the Company of their intent to opt out of the
Program without penalty by April 15th. Under the Company proposal customers
Pcoud Spon,o, of the
2002/2004 US Olymp;c Team
November 28, 2003
Idaho 2003 Irrigation Load Control Report
PacifiCorp
Page 2 of 2
notifying the Company of their intent to opt out of the Program after April 15th shall be
subject to the terms of Special Condition No., Early Termination (Schedule No. 72).
5. Not enforce the ineligibility for the 2004 irrigation season for customers who submitted
an Intent to Participate Notification in the in 2003 Program but subsequently failed to
execute a Load Control Service Agreement. This proposal is based on the Company
recommendation to eliminate the Intent to Participate Notification as part of the 2004
Program.
6. To limit the potential cost for participating customers under terms of Special Condition
No 8, Cost of Load Control Devices, (Schedule No. 72) to such costs only to the extent
that they exceed one thousand dollars.
The Company will separately file tariff changes reflecting these recommendations together with
the Load Control Service Credit for the 2004 irrigation season.
It is respectfully requested that all formal correspondence and staff requests regarding this matter
be addressed to :
By E-mail (preferred):datareq uest~paci fi corp. com
By Fax:[phone]
By regular mail:Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah St., Suite 800
Portland, OR 97232
Informal questions should be directed to Bob Lively [phone].
Sincerely,
~~~!
1JtIZ/
Vice President, Regulation
Enclosures
ATTACHMENT A
ID AH 0 2003 IRRI GA TI 0 N LOAD
CONTROL CREDIT RIDER
PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATION
REPORT
NOVEMBER 2003
Final Report
Idaho 2003 Irrigation
Load Control Credit
Rider Program Impact
Evaluation
Submitted to:
PacifiCorp
Prepared by:
Allen Lee , Ph.
Brian Hedman
Collin Elliot
Quantec, LLC
November 2003
Table of Contents
Introduction ..... ..................... ......................... ............... ...... 1-
Background """""""""""""""""""""""""""......................................
Response to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
Recommendations """"""""""""""""""""""""""'"............................
Overview of Evaluation Approach.................. ....... ................"............... 1- 3
II. Data and Assumptions ..................................................... 11-
Energy Data and Benefits Valuation......................................................ll-
Costs.............................................................................,.........................ll-
III. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis........................................... 111-
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis................................................................. Ill-
Inputs.................................................................................................... Ill-
Results ....................................................................,............................. Ill-
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program
Introduction
Background
Pursuant to the Company s commitment and Commission Order No. 29034
PacifiCorp agreed to work with irrigators to develop an optional load control
program beginning with the 2003-irrigation season. In December 2002 and
January 2003 the Company met with representatives of the Idaho Irrigation
Pumpers Association and the irrigation customer class to explain the
Company s proposed program and to solicit comments and suggestions from
the impacted customers. Based on feedback from customers, PacifiCorp filed
its proposed Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider Program (Program) on
January 31 2003. On March 17,2003 , the Idaho Commission approved the
PacifiCorp Program for implementation beginning with the 2003 irrigation
season.
Response to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
Recom mendations
In March 2003 the Idaho Public Utilities Commission issued Order No.
29209. The order included IPUC Staff recommendations for PacifiCorp to
prepare a report as follows:
...
prepare a detailed report on the program and file it with the
Commission. The filing should be made no later than
December 1 2003 and should contain the number of irrigation
customers who 1) were eligible to participate in the program
2) filed a letter of intent to participate 3) entered into a load
control service agreement 4) participated in the programfor
the full three and one-half months and 5) those not eligible to
participate next year. The report should also include the total
dollar amount of credits provided under the program identified
by month. The filing should further include any proposed
changes or recommendations to improve the program.
(Order No. 29209, page
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program
Commission Findings in Order No. 29209 directed the Company to:
...
submit a report at the end of the irrigation season
summarizing its results. The report once filed will be noticed
for comment and we anticipate that recommendations for
program changes will result in an improved program for the
2004 irrigation season. (Order No. 29209, page
The following information responds to the aforementioned IPUC Staff
recommendations. Table 1.2 provides the data requested regarding customer
participation.
Table 1.2: Number of Irrigation Customers by Category
Were eligible to participate in the program
Participated in the program for the full three
and one-half months
Were not eligible to participate next year
015 accounts / 4,466 individually metered
sites
915
207 different customers / 403 individually
metered sites
207 customers / 402 sites
Filed a letter of intent to participate
Entered into a load control service agreement
708
The total dollar amount of credits provided under the program, identified by
month, are summarized in Table 1.3. Additionally, Table 1.4 shows the actual
avoided demand by month and control period.
Table 1.3: 2003 Avoided Demand and
Participation Credit (LCSC)
June
July
August
September
Total participation credit
$60 971.03
$93,539.55
$97 749.45
$25 323.
$277,583.
Note: A voided demand (kW) shown should be divided by two to
derive the effective average control-day avoided demand. This is because
each inigator was controlled only two of the four possible control days.
Actual avoided demand by control day is presented in Table 1.4
quantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program
II.Data and Assumptions
Energy Data and Benefits Valuation
PacifiCorp provided the data used in this evaluation. For this Program
Quantec saw no need to collect energy impact data independently for the
following reasons:
. The design of the Program was straightforward-participating pumps were
required to be off for the full period during control days
PacifiCorp had good documentation on which pumps were participating
and their power rating
PacifiCorp did measure loads on specific circuits and substations and the
results clearly demonstrated dramatic power drops during the control
periods
Random inspections conducted at about 8 % of the participating sites found
that the equipment was performing flawlessly and that only 3% (1 of 32)
of the participants had done anything to override the control system.
Figure IT.1 demonstrates the impact of the Program on the irrigation daily load
shape. These SCADA data are from the /IDAHO/BGRASY transmission
substation (CB #67) and show measured loads recorded during selected days.
This substation was selected because it had a substantial number of Program
participants (participants represented 29% of this circuit's load). The graph
shows the loads averaged for the control days MondaylW ednesday and
Tuesdayffhursday and for Friday, a non-control day. Although the load shape
and magnitudes vary by day, the impact of the Program is clearly shown as a
significant and sharp load drop during the control hours.2 This figure
although not conclusive, is consistent with the expected impact of the Program
on demand during the control period.
The participant had not intentionally tried to violate the system control but had damaged
it during an emergency situation.
The actual levels of demand displayed for the different days should be considered only
illustrative since the data represent only five days out of the entire irrigation season. The
levels are likely to be influenced by exogenous and short-term variables such as weather,
non-irrigation loads, and agricultural practices. A more accurate display of relative usage
magnitudes would require longer-term measurements.
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 11-
Table 1.4: 2003 Actual A voided Demand Realized by Control Period
Monday / Wednesday
Tuesday / Thursday
Mean Avoided kW
Total Avoided kW
20,533.
19,012.
19,772.
39,545.
23,782.
881.00
831.
663.
861.67
20,643.
752.
505.34
20,976.
297.
19,636.
273.
Overview of Evaluation Approach
Quantec s impact evaluation estimated the benefits and costs of this Program
and used them as inputs to the cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost effectiveness
was assessed based on the benefit/cost ratio calculated from alternative
perspectives.
PacifiCorp provided measured and calculated energy impact data for the
analysis. It also provided detailed Program cost data. Quantec used its
Demand Impact Cost Effectiveness (DICE) model to calculate the stream of
Program benefits and costs during the expected life of the Program and
calculated present discounted values. These values were then used to derive
the benefit/cost ratios. Quantec has used this model and approach to evaluate
numerous utility programs in the past.
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program
Figure 11.1: Load Shapes for Control and Non-control Days
I Control Period
:i::iE 30
~ ~
~ 0 0 0 0 0m oo
~ ~~ ~
m oo
~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
o ~
~ ~
0 0 00 0 0
.. .. ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~
. . .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
Time of Day
-Man-Wed Control Average - Tue-Thu Control Average -Non-control
To assess the costs and benefits associated with the clear demand response of
participating customers, it is necessary to understand how the Program
influenced participants ' overall irrigation behavior. To provide this
information, PacifiCorp s irrigation expert obtained feedback from
participating customers. PacifiCorp found that, in addition to reducing demand
during the control periods, Program participants were not making up for the
foregone irrigation by increasing irrigation in non-control periods. The
behaviors of irrigators that allowed them to reduce total irrigation on
participating fields included the following:
Irrigators were able to enroll locations that they believed could tolerate
the measurable amount of water that will be avoided as a function of the
imposed control schedule. This decision is a function of the soil type, the
system used to deliver the water (e., circle irrigation, line irrigation
etc.), the growing season, and forecasted climatic conditions (rainfall
temperature, Cooling Degree Days, relative humidity, etc.
Irrigators have the option to manipulate the crop rotation pattern such that
drought resistant crops can be synched to pumps and irrigation systems
nominated for participation in the Program. Crops such as hay, grain
peas, and corn would typically be good candidates for Program inclusion.
quantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 11-
Irrigators were able to make a business decision taking into account their
risk preferences, given their anticipated "strike price" for a particular
commodity. Irrigators were able to choose whether to participate given
the certainty of the Program curtailment credit and their perception of
market conditions and their risk assessment.
This finding had a direct implication on the impact analysis. Although the
Program was implemented primarily as a way to reduce demand during peak
periods, it also resulted in energy savings. Because the aggregate demand
reduction (on the order of 20 MW per control day) was relatively small
compared to total system demand and incremental additions of this magnitude
to a utility s generation resource mix are unlikely, it was impractical to
estimate its benefits in terms of avoided demand alone. Instead, PacifiCorp
calculated the value of energy savings using the Integrated Resource Planning
(IRP) Decrement approach for valuing Demand Side Management (DSM)
programs. Fundamentally, the IRP Model calculates revenue requirements
based on a given set of assumptions, including an hourly load forecast.
Decrements (subtractions) to the load forecast are made based on the hourly
shape of the DSM program modeled. Values are calculated with and without
the Program. The difference, or decrement value, represents the most
PacifiCorp would pay to avoid the load being modeled. The resulting values
for avoided energy ($/MWh) based on the anticipated load shape of this
Program are presented in Table II.
Table 11.1: Estimated Value of Energy Savings
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
$57.
$57.
$59.
$60.
$62.
To estimate the energy and demand savings, PacifiCorp used the
characteristics of the participating customers' loads. In 2003 , there were 207
participants with a total of 403 independent participating sites. From its
participant contracts and three-year average historical data, PacifiCorp knew
the average historical demand of each site during each month. The total
demand reduction for each control period (Mon/W ed and Tuerrhu) was
estimated by customer and aggregated to calculate the tota1load reduction
induced by the Program. Table IT.2 presents the calculated demand reductions
by period.
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 11-
Table 11.2: A voided 2003 Aggregate Demand by Control Period
Note: In 2004 and subsequent Program years, the July estimated avoided demand for the MonlWed period is
24,489 kW and for the Tueffhu period it is 21 960 kW. In 2003, the values are slightly lower because several
participants did not participate for the full month.
The avoided energy economic benefits of the 2003 Program were calculated
on a monthly basis using the following formula:
Energy Economic Benefits
(No. of MonlWed Control Days MonlWed Control Days Avoided Demand
No. ofTuelIhu Control Days TuelIhu Control Days Avoided Demand)
Value of Energy Savings
The values of energy savings are shown in Table IT.1 for each year. For future
years, these benefits are calculated using the same formula, but with the value
of energy savings for the appropriate year.
For purposes of estimating future benefits and costs, we used PacifiCorp
evaluation assumption that the Program will continue for the five-year period
2003-2007. This assumption is used for evaluation purposes only. It is
expected that the Program will continue indefinitely. PacifiCorp assumed that
the same number of customers and sites would participate each year. Although
participation was assumed to be constant, PacifiCorp s planning assumptions
included the likelihood that some customers would drop out each year, but
that others would be recruited to take their place. Given the strong response to
the Program this year, Quantec believes that it is very reasonable to assume
that participants who drop out can be replaced easily in future years. Future
recruitment costs are discussed in the following section.
The economic benefits to Program participants include reduced utility bills
and the PacifiCorp participation credit. Given that the participants respond to
the Program by reducing their total energy consumption, Quantec calculated
the utility bill savings by multiplying the marginal electricity rate for the
average irrigator times the total energy savings for all participants. The
average irrigator consumes 43 000 kWh/month, and the applicable rate for this
level of consumption is $0.048/kWh.
The participation credit benefit to participants is discussed in the next section
as it is treated as a Program cost from the utility s perspective.
Utah Power estimated this consumption level based on an assumption of a 100 hp pump
motor, with a 75% load factor, operating 18 hours per day for a 30-day month.
quantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 11-
Since the Program does not affect customers' peak demand on non-control
days, we have assumed the Program does not reduce the participants' monthly
peak demand. Consequently, no participant economic benefits were attributed
to reductions in charges (power rate) based on maximum demand.
Costs
PacifiCorp provided a breakdown of 2003 Program year costs and forecasts of
future-year costs. We used both the 2003 cost data and projections for future
years in our analysis.
Table IT.3 summarizes the costs provided by PacifiCorp. The values for 2003
are actual costs. All values are reported in current dollars and all costs except
field expenses and interruption credits are assumed to escalate at a rate of 3%
per year.
Table II. 3: Program Costs
Administrative support 613 $9,902 $10,199 $10,505 $10,820
Evaluation $2,135 199 $2,265 $2,333 $2,403
Filed Expenses $250,223 $85 000 $90,000 $95,000 $100,000
Participation credits $277,584 $277,584 $277 ,584 $277,584 $277,584
Program management $10,993 $11 323 $11 662 $12 012 $12 373
Reporting $352 $362 $373 $384 $396
Total Program costs $550 900 $386 370 $392 084 $397 819 $403 576
Field expenses reflect potential costs for maintaining field equipment and
recruiting new participants to replace any who drop out. Given the experience
during the first Program year, Quantum believes that the estimates are
conservative and that the actual field expense costs are likely to be less than
those assumed by PacifiCorp.
The participation credit costs are constant for each year since the number of
participants is assumed to be unchanged and, and the level of future credits is
unknown. These credits are treated as a cost from the utility perspective. From
the perspective of the participants, however, they are benefits.
The customers were not charged for costs of participating in this Program.
Consequently, all Program costs are associated with expenditures by
PacifiCorp.
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 11-
III.Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost effectiveness was calculated using Quantec s DICE model. Procedurally,
the model takes the first year kWh savings and allocates them over all the
760 hours in a year based on load shapes appropriate for each of end use
being analyzed. The achieved hourly kWh savings are then multiplied by the
appropriate avoided cost based on the time of day and season during which
they occur (summer peak, summer off-peak, winter peak, etc.). The value of
the savings is calculated for each year of the measure life and then discounted
back to the present.
As part of this evaluation, Quantec conducted an analysis of the Program costs
and benefits from the following perspectives:
1. Program Participants: For participants, Program benefits include
bill reductions and the participation credit payments participants
received for demand reduction.
PacifiCorp: From PacifiCorp s perspective, the benefits are in the
form of reduced generation or power purchase costs. The costs
include marketing and administration associated with funding the
Program, as well as the equipment and installation expenses and
participant credits.
Ratepayers: All ratepayers (participants and non-participants) may
experience an increase in rates to recover lost revenue, if any. This
test (referred to as the Ratepayer Impact Measure Test, or RIM)
includes all PacifiCorp Program costs plus lost revenues. On the
benefits side, this test includes all reduced generation or power
purchase costs.
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC): This test examines the Program
benefits and costs from the perspective of the utility and its
customers combined. On the benefit side, it includes reduced
generation or power purchase costs. On the cost side, it includes
costs incurred by both the utility and by the participants, but
participant credits are excluded because they are transfer payments
among customers.
Table Ill. 1 summarizes the various components of the four tests.
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 111-
Table IIL1
Benefits and Costs of Various Tests for This Program
Participant None to participants
PacifiCorp
Value of bill savings from
reduced consumption and
participants' credit payments
for demand reduction
Value of avoided energy costs
as calculated by PacifiCorp
IRP model
Value of avoided energy costs
as calculated by PacifiCorp
IRP model
Value of avoided energy costs
as calculated by PacifiCorp
IRP model
RIM
TRC
Inputs
Program administrative,
marketing, and equipment costs
and participant credits
Program administrative
marketing, and equipment costs;
participant credits; lost revenues
Program administrative,
marketing, and equipment costs
As noted earlier, PacifiCorp provided the inputs Quantec used in the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Quantec thoroughly reviewed these inputs and the
assumptions behind them. All costs and benefits were provided in nominal
terms (i., without eliminating the effect of inflation).
kWh Savings. Estimated energy savings in 2003 were 7,917 839 kWh
annually. These savings were derived from the monthly demand reduction
during each of the control periods (Mon/Wed and Tueffhu), times the number
of days in each control period each month, times six hours for each control
period each day. In future years, the estimated annual energy savings are
964 999 kWh. This value is higher than the 2003 figure because, as noted
before, several participants did not participate during the full month of July
2003. The monthly demand reductions in each control period were shown in
Table IT.2; the demand reduction summed over the Program months and
control periods was 167 987 kW in 2003. In 2004 and subsequent years, this
estimated value will be higher-168 773 kW-for the same reason that the
energy savings will be higher, as discussed above.
Life. The Program impacts were calculated over the five-year evaluation term
of the Program. In addition to an analysis over the Program evaluation term
we conducted an analysis for the first year only.
Participant Retail Electricity Rate. An energy rate of $0.048 per kWh was
used, based on PacifiCorp s current tariff for irrigators and the average energy
use of irrigation customers.
Quantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 111-
Program Costs. The costs to the utility included administrative support
evaluation, field expenses (equipment plus labor), participant interruption
credits, Program management, and reporting.
Avoided Costs. Cost effectiveness was calculated based on PacifiCorp
estimate of the value of energy savings, as described in Chapter IT. The effect
of line losses is included in the avoided cost and in the calculation of benefits.
Discount Rates. To derive present discounted values, all future costs and
benefits were discounted using nominal discount rates. The rate used in the
TRC was 5.23% and the rate used in all other tests was 7.82%.
Results
Table Ill.2 summarizes the DICE model cost effectiveness outputs for the first
year for the Program. The first-year numbers are based on actual Program data
provided by PacifiCorp. The Program is cost effective in the first year
(positive net present value and benefit/cost ratios exceeding 1.0) from the
Total Resource Cost perspective. From PacifiCorp s perspective (UTC), the
first year of the Program is not cost effective because this is when most costs
are incurred. For participants (PART), the Program is cost effective in the first
year, providing benefits of over $657 000 at no cost to the participants.
Table 111.
Cost Effectiveness - First- Year Only
TRC 273 317 452 029 178,712
UTC 550,900 452 029 (98,871)
RIM 931,146 452 029 (479,117)
PART 657,830 657 830 N/A
Detailed Results
Benefits TRC UTC RIM PART
Avoided Costs 452 029 452 029 452,029
Bill Reduction 380 246
Incentive Payments 277 584
Total Benefits 452 029 452,029 452,029 657,830
Costs TRC UTC RIM PART
Program Administration 23,094 23,094 23,094
Participant Incentives 277,584 277,584
Field Costs 250 223 250,223 250,223
Lost Revenues 380,246
Total Costs 273,317 550,900 931,146
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 111-3
Table IIT.3 shows how energy and demand savings , costs, and benefits vary by
year for the five-year evaluation term (2003 through 2007). For each year
after the first, the results are based on an assumption that the number of
participants is the same as in the first year.4 Program costs vary by year, as
shown previously in Table II.3. Table IIT.3 demonstrates that the Program
becomes more cost effective over time. While the (undiscounted) benefits
added each year remain constant, Program costs decline after the initial field
expenses. 5
TRC
RIM
Table 111.3: Five-Year Cost-Effectiveness Summary
2003 7 917 839 167 987
2004 7,964,999 168,773
2005 7 964 999 168,773
2006 7 964 999 168 773
2007 7 964 999 168 773
~Q03;7.j9.tl,8:39 '161;987,
20041 7;964;99.9 ;J68;173)
2005'l;964;Q99 ;J68177.3
~OQ6' 7,9.6~19,99~t68,173/
20Q77;964;999 /~()8rz73 ,
'. '
2003 7 917 839 167 987
2004 7 964 999 168,773
2005 7 964 999 168 773
2006 7,964,999 168,773
2007 7 964 999 168,773
20037,9.17,839 ,167,987'
20047,964-,999 /1681173)
2005'(;9644999 '168,7.73;
2006 7 964,999 "1()8,773 ,
20071,964;999: 168,173 '
$452
$437
$425,
$414
$403,
:;$452,
\$426jp~
; $405,
;1;$3815;\5:3
;:; $3f36i53
$452
$426,
$405
$385,
$366
$657,
/$613,721
);$569,
;/$527
f33
$273 316
$103,380
$103,402
$103 184
$102 751
$550;900.
$359,849 '
"/$338;665;
.;$3J8;f377'
$299;824. .
$931 147
$714 617
$667,702
$623,850
$582 864
For a five-year evaluation term, Table Ill.4 shows that the Program is cost-
effective from both TRC and PacifiCorp s perspectives. To PacifiCorp, the net
present value (NPV) of the Program is more than $168 000. From the
participants' perspective , the NPV of the Program is more than $2.8 million.
The RIM test is the only one under which the five-year Program is not cost
The energy savings figures, however, were adjusted upward to account for full
participation in July (as discussed earlier).
Note that while Table Ill.3 presents some of the same results as Table 111.2, there are
some small differences due to rounding.
Quantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 111-
effective. Energy-efficiency programs often do not pass this test because of
the inclusion of lost revenues as a cost.
Table 111.
Cost Effectiveness - Five-Year Offering
TRC 686,032 133 572 447,540
UTC 867,916 036,250 168,334
RIM 520,180 036 250 483,930)
PART 858,320 858,320 N/A
Detailed Results
Benefits TRC UTC RIM PART
Avoided Costs 133,572 036 250 036,250
Bill Reduction 652 264
Incentive Payments 206 056
Total Benefits 133 572 036,250 036,250 858 320
Costs TRC UTC RIM PART
Program Administration 110,677 105,596 105,596
Participant Incentives 206,056 206 056
Field Costs 575,356 556,264 556,264
Lost Revenues 652 264
Total Costs 686,032 867,916 520,180
. auantec
Evaluation of the Idaho Irrigation Load Control Credit Program 111-