20090318Annual DSM 2006 Report.pdf

~~~~OUNTAIN o;r'1.
!i-l;til~,,-)'
201 South Main, Suite 2300
2009 MAR 18 AM 10: 07 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
March 18, 2009
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 West Washigton
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Attention:Jean D. Jewell
Commssion Secreta
Re:PAC-E-05-10
2008 Annual Report of Idaho Demand Side Management Activities
PacifiCorp (d.b.a. Rocky Mounta Power) hereby submits for filing an original and eight copies
of its 2008 Demand Side Management Anua Report, pursuat to Order No. 29976 in Case No.
PAC-E-05-10.
It is respectfuly requested that all formal corrspondence and sta requests regarding this fiing
be addressed to one of the following:
By E-mail (preferred):dclarequestcmpacificorp.com
)
[phone]By Fax:
By reguar mail:Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah Blvd., Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232.r'
Informal inquies regarding this filing may be directed to Ted Weston at 801-220-2963.
Sincerely,
~/ß¿~ ~)A/
r~~.'Jarseti
Vice President, Reguation
Enclosures
i='f,_....
2009 MAR 18 AM 10= 07
Rocky Mountain Power
Demand-side Management
2008 Annual Report for the Idaho Jurisdiction
March 18,2009
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table of Contents
Executive Sumar .. .................. ............................... .................... ........ .................... ......... 3
Demand-side Management Programs and Activity.......:.................................................... 4
Load Management .......................... .......... .................. .................... ................ ................ 4
Residential Energy Efficiency ........................................................................................ 5
Home Energy Savings Program..................................................................................5
See Ya Later Refrigerator........................................................................................... 8
Low Income Weatherization.......................................................................................9
Non-residential Energy Effciency............................................................................... 10
Irrigation Energy Savers........................................................................................... 10
FinAswer Express ................................................................................................... 11
Energy FinAswer ....................................................................................................12
Nortwest Energy Effciency Allance ............. ................................................... ......... 13
Overall Revenues, Expenditures and Results................................................................... 13
Program Cost Effectiveness.............................................................................................. 16
Customer Efficiency Services Balancing Account.......................................................... 20
Appendix One - Balancing Account Activity. ...... ............................ ................ ................ 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Rocky Mountain Power - Idaho DSM Program Sumar Results ..................... 3
Table 2. Irrigation Load Control Program Performance..................................................... 4
Table 3. Home Energy Savings Program Performance ...................................................... 6
Table 4. See Ya Later Refrigerator Performance............................................................... 8
Table 5. Low Income Weatherization Performance ..........................................................9
Table 6. Irrgation Energy Savers Program Performance ........... ................ ..................... 11
Table 7. FinAswer Express Program Performance........................................................ 12
Table 8. Energy FinAswer Program Performance ......................................................... 13
Table 9. 2008 Revenue by Customer Type...................................................................... 14
Table 10.2008 Expenditures by Type of Program........................................................... 15
Table 11. 2008 Energy Effciency Expenditues by Customer Type ............... ................ 15
Table 12.2008 Energy Effciency Results by Customer Type......................................... 16
Table 13. Irrigation Load Control (72 & 72A) - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ...................... 17
Table 14. Home Energy Savings - 2008 Cost Effectiveness............................................ 17
Table 15. See Ya Later Refrigerator - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ....... ..................... .......... 18
Table 16. Low Income Weatherization - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ................... ............... 18
Table 17. Irrgation Energy Savers - 2008 Cost Effectiveness........................................ 18
Table 18. FinAswer Express - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ................................................ 19
Table 19. Energy FinAswer - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ................... .............................. 19
Table 20. Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ................ 19
Table 21. Non-Residential Energy Effciency Portfolio - 2008 Cost Effectiveness........ 20
Table 22. Overall Energy Effciency Portfolio - 2008 Cost Effectiveness ...................... 20
Table 23. Preliminar Balancing Account Analysis......................................................... 21
2
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Executive Summary
Rocky Mountain Power (the "company") offers demand-side management (DSM)
programs to retail customers in Idaho as an alternative to the acquisition of supply-side
resources. Demand-side resources assist the company in keeping up with load growth and
contribute to the company's abilty to meet system peak requirements. Demand-side
management programs provide Idaho customers with tools that enable them to reduce or
assist in the management of their energy usage, thereby reducing customer energy costs.
Demand-side resources are a valuable component of Rocky Mountain Power's resource
portfolio and are relied upon in resource planng as a least cost alternative to supply ~
side resources.
Rocky Mountain Power curently offers seven energy effciency and load control
programs in Idaho. Costs associated with these programs as well as the Idaho portion of
the company's contrbution to the Nortwest Energy Efficiency Allance are recovered
through the Customer Efficiency Services Rate Adjustment (Schedule 191), with the
exception of the Load Control Service Credits which are paid to paricipants of the
irrigation load control programs (Schedule 72 and 72A) and are recovered through
general rates. The results of Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho demand-side management
activities for the reporting period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 are
sumarzed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Rocky Mountain Power - Idaho DSM Program Summary Results
Total Revenue $4,287,0601
Total Expenditures $4,767,955L
Controllable loads - Me2awatts 215.1
Enerio savin2s - First year me2awatt hours 10,3894
Paricipation in the irrgation load control programs exceeded expectations by 65
megawatts providing the company with 215 megawatts of controllable load through these
programs in 2008. Overall energy savings for 2008 achieved though energy efficiency
programs, while below the forecast provided in early 2008, were in line with the
company's expectations after accounting for declining economic activity and the
reduction in residential lighting savings.
Irrgation load control program expenses during 2008 were higher than forecasted due to
higher than expected paricipation levels and general program complexities experienced
durng the installation of newer and more sophisticated control equipment. This was
offset by lower than anticipated expenses for the energy efficiency programs. At the end
of 2008, the Customer Efficiency Services balancing account had an unfuded balance of
$770,451, or 18 percent of 2008 anual revenues.
i Reflects revenues recovered though Schedule 191, the Customer Efficiency Services Rate Adjustment.
2 Expenditues exclude the Load Control Service Credits which are paid to paricipants ofthe irigation
load control programs Schedule 72 and 72A and recovered though general rates.3 Demand reduction as measured at the customer site.
4 Energy savings as measured at the customer site.
3
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
With the exception of the Home Energy Savings program (Schedule 118), individua
programs were cost effective based on the utilty cost and the total resource cost tests.
The Home Energy Savings program's utilty and total resource cost test results were
marginal at 0.822 and 0.758 respectively. Overall, Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho
energy efficiency portfolio was cost effective under both key cost tests. As anticipated,
only the irrgation load control programs satisfied the rate impact test.
Demand-side Management Programs and Activity
Load Management
This program is marketed as the Irrgation Load Control program (Schedules 72 & 72A)
and is offered to Idaho irrgation customers receiving retail electric service on Schedule
10. Paricipants agree to allow for the curilment of their electricity usage as prescribed
in Schedules 72 and 72A in exchange for the receipt of paricipation credits. A report
specific to the 2008 season for this program was submitted to the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission on December 2, 2008 and covers the period from October 1, 2007 though
September 30, 20085. Inormation in Tables 2 and 12 included in this report were taken
from that report.
Table 2. Irrigation Load Control Program Performance
2008 Pro2ram Performance
MW 215()
Expenditues -total $8,908,216
Paricipation credits $5,993,8697
Program operations $2,914,347lS
Paricipation (customers)609'1
Paricipation (sites)1,5781U
Additional information on the irrgation load control program is available in the 2008
seasonal report. While field costs for the program are recovered through the Schedule 191,
the Customer Effciency Services charge, the program's customer paricipation credits
are recovered through general rates. Enrollment and site installations for the 2009 season
are curently underway.
5 Report is dated November 25, 2008
6 Demand reduction as measured at the customer site.
7 Load Control Service Credits. Not included in the Customer Effciency Services balancing account. Data
taen from table four of the 2008 irigation load management program seasonal report.S Program delivery costs for the period from October 2007 through September 2008 as described in the
2008 irigation load management program seasonal report provided in table four. The amount included in
the 2008 Customer Effciency Services balancing account analysis within this report is based on a calendar
feriod in which the costs were $3,126,637.Data from Pages 2 and 9 ofthe 2008 irigation load management program seasonal report.
10 Date from Pages 2 and 9 of the 2008 irigation load management program seasonal report.
4
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Residential Energy Efficiency
Home Energy Savings Program
The Home Energy Savings program (Schedule 118) provides a broad framework to
deliver incentives for more effcient products and services installed or received by Idaho
customers in new or existing homes, multi-family housing unts or manufactured homes.
The program is delivered though, Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI), a third
par administrator hired by the company. Customer information on the Home Energy
Savings program can be found on the program's web site at
ww.homeenergysavings.net/idaho/home and can also be accessed through
ww.rockymtnpower.net/Aricle/Aricle45165.html. the company's Idaho energy
effciency program website.
Eligible program measures include: washing machines, refrigerators, water heaters,
dishwashers, lighting (both compact florescent lamps (CFLs) and fixtures), cooling
equipment and services, ceiling, wall and attic insulation, windows and miscellaneous
equipment such as ceilng fans. Incentives are provided to customers through two
methods: (1) post-purchase application process with incentives paid directly to
paricipating customers, and (2) mid-market (i.e., retailers and manufactuers) buy-downs,
for delivery of CFL incentives. Mid-market buy-downs result in lower retail prices for
customers at point-of-purchase and involve no direct customer application process.
In 2008 the company proposed several changes to the program in Case No. PAC-E-08-01
that were approved by the Commission effective in May of 2008. The changes were
intended to increase program paricipation and better align incentives with Idaho market
costs. The changes proposed and approved in 2008 included:
. Washing machines: Based on analysis of sales and paricipation by modified
energy factor (MEF) level, the category was split into two tiers and the incentive
was reduced for the lower tier and increased for the upper tier. Ths was designed
to increase sales of higher efficiency equipment, yet stil provide a modest
incentive for equipment exceeding baseline levels. Qualifying equipment and
incentive levels are listed below.
o Tier 1: MEF 1.72-1.99, $50 incentive
o Tier 2: MEF 2.0+, $100 incentive
. Dishwashers: Reduced the qualifying equipment requirements from 0.68 Energy
Factor (EF) to 0.65 EF, to align with ENERGY STAR qualifications. This was
done to minimize customer uncertainty regarding incentive availabilty if they
purchased ENERGY STAR qualified equipment.
. Water heaters: Aligned eligibilty requirements across different tan sizes,
established a minimum size of 40 gallons and utilized a minimum EF of 0.93.
. Lighting: Expanded CFL manufactue buy-downs from twice anually to year
round and modified qualifying lighting and pricing to better accommodate
5
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
specialty bulb pricing. The final price to the customers for specialty bulbs was
increased from $.99 to $2.75 to reflect the bulb pricing differences.
. Evaporative cooling: As a result of local pricing, product purchase locations,
ease of installation and company experience in other markets the incentive for
evaporative cooling equipment was reduced to $100 and the contractor incentive
was discontinued.
. Insulation: Insulation incentives were reduced from $1.00 per square foot to
$0.50 per squae foot and a cap of $650 per home was added. This change was
based on Idao market data on costs and participation from the prior two years.
. Heat Pumps: Added incentives for heat pumps to the program. Established
minimum efficiency requirements and set customer and dealer incentives for two
types of projects; a) installing a high effciency heat pump instead of a code
minimum unit, or b) converting an electrc heating system to a heat pump.
Table 3 provides an overview of the 2008 Home Energy Savings program performance
information by program measure.
Table 3. Home Energy Savings Program Performance
2008 Pro2ram performance
kWh 552,117
Expenditures -tota $490,101
Incentives $265,36011
Participation by measure type
Ceiling fans 20
Clothes washer 813
Dishwasher 205
HVAC 2
Water heater 72
Fixtures 341L
Insulation - attic 127u
Insulation - floor 1914
Insulation - wall 25D
Refrgerator 263
Windows 10510
Compact Florescent Lighting 48511
II This amount represents total incentives paid in 2008, not necessarily attched directly to all savings
reported in 2008. Incentives used in the cost effectiveness analysis are $224,827.
12 Represents paricipants - 60 units total
13 Represents paricipants - 180,721 square feet of attic insulation in total
14 Represents paricipants - 18,046 square feet of floor insulation in total
15 Represents paricipants - 18,236 square feet of wall insulation in total
16 Represents paricipants - 11,833 square feet of windows in total17 Represents paricipants - each paricipant is assumed to have purchased 10 CFLs (a total of 4,849 bulbs)
6
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
The Home Energy Savings program under-performed in 2008 due to a reduction in
lighting savings and increased costs associated with weatherization measures. Retail
locations and delivery interactions associated with regional lighting offerings were all
contributing factors to these results.
In 2006 and 2007 the Home Energy Savings program benefited from its alignment with
and savings attributions from the regional lighting program. In 2008 Rocky Mountain
Power intended to continue its support of the regional effort when the company made its
changes to the 2008 Home Energy Savings program's lighting measures. However due to
timing differences of when the lighting initiative redesigns occured, the opposite
occured, the two programs ended up not in alignent on the pricing of specialty bulbs.
This lack of alignment presented two options to the company; 1) the Home Energy
Savings offer could be changed again in 2008 to correct the sitution or 2) Rocky
Mountai Power, though PECI, could seek other paths to ensure the program's lighting
savings were secured and wait until the next program change before aligning again with
the regional program. Whle the options were not mutually exclusive, the company
elected to not change the program twice in 2008 and instead to pursue a small market
strategy of enrollng smaller retailers in the market, those more strategically located in the
company's rual service areas in Idaho. Many of these smaller retailer chains indicated an
interest at the corporate level; however delays in generating interest at the individual
store level resulted in a delay in the discounted lighting options becoming available on
store shelves. As a result, lower than anticipated CFL bulb sales contributed to reduced
energy savings through the Home Energy Savings program in 2008.
Based on the company's experience in 2008, the company and PECI believe a two tier
approach - 1) regional program realignent and 2) enrollment of small retailers in the
company's program - will provide the best opportunity to improve lighting measure
savings and overall program results going forward. PECI is curently analyzing changes
to the company's lighting offer necessar to better align with the regional offering and to
fuher pursue the small market chanel strategy. Program changes will be implemented
in the second quarer of 2009 utilizing the existing flexible tariff process.
Insulation participation in 2008 increased, driven in par by more contractors entering the
weatherization business. Contractors are focusing on weatherization projects as a result of
declines in new constrction activity. These contractors have increased marketing
activities to end use customers which, combined with reduced product costs and
attactive utility incentives, has increased paricipation beyond the company's 2008
estimates. Insulation was included in the company's original Home Energy Savings
program as an accommodation measure to help ensure a comprehensive package offering
to customers, with incentive levels set to encourage paricipation rather than specifically
pass cost effectiveness stadards on a stand alone measure basis. Better alignment
between costs, incentives and electric savings were par of the 2008 changes, discussed
above, with incentive level reductions and the addition of a per house cap. Based on the
robust 2008 paricipation results the company intends to refine its insulation program
7
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
even fuer by reducing incentives to the level necessar for the insulation measures to
be cost effective on a stadalone basis. These changes will be made early in the second
quarer of 2009 utilizing the flexible taff process.
The lower lighting savings and higher insulation paricipation described above adversely
impacted cost effectiveness of the Home Energy Savings program for 2008. Specific cost
effectiveness data for the Home Energy Savings program is provided in Table 14. It
should be noted that the benefit cost ratios in Table 14 are calculated strctly from an
electric savings basis. This view is consistent with prior company reporting; however,
this methodology is considered conservative when compared to other regional and utility
reporting entities that include non-electric energy benefits such as water savings for
washing machines and other fuel savings such as gas or propane for weatherization in
their cost effectiveness calculations. The company and PECI are making the necessar
adjustments, discussed above, to restore the cost effectiveness of the program in 2009.
See Ya Later Refrigerator
The Idaho Refrgerator Recycling Program (Schedule 117) is available to Idaho
residential customers through a company contract with a third-pary program
administrator, JACO Environmental Services. Older refrigerators and freezers which are
less effcient, yet operational, are taen out of use permanently and recycled in an
environmentally responsible maner. 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 secondar appliance market. To
paricipate customers call a 1-800 number to schedule a pick-up. Program awareness is
generated though mass media advertising chanels as well as company chanel
communcations such as the program's web site, bil stuffers, and customer newsletters.
In addition to free pick-up and a nominal cash incentive, paricipants receive an energy
effciency packet consisting of ENERGY STARIR-certified compact fluorescent light
bulbs, a refrgerator/freezer thermometer, and energy education materials.
Table 4. See Va Later Refrigerator Performance
2008 Proe:ram performance
kWh 930,993
Expenditues $113,296
Incentives $20,910
Participation
Refrgerators 520
Freezers 177
Kits 643
Paricipation for 2008 was slightly less than in 2007. This experience is consistent with
results reported by JACO for similar programs in other markets and is likely attbutable
to the downward trend in economic conditions.
8
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
The 2008 See Ya Later Refrgerator program was cost effective from both a utilty cost
test and tota resource cost test perspective. See Table 15 for cost test results.
Low Income Weatherization
The Low Income Weatherization Services program (Schedule 21) is administered for
Rocky Mountain Power by Eastern Idaho Communty Action Parership (EICAP) in
Idaho Falls and South Eastern Idaho Community Action Agency (SEICAA) in Pocatello.
These parerships allow for leveraging of company fuding with federal grants available
to EICAP and SEICAA, increasing the number of homes served. Rocky Mountain
Power's program provides incentives that cover 75% of the cost of the program's
approved energy efficiency measures.
Customers with incomes at or below 160% of federal povert guidelines may quaify.
Paricipants can be either homeowners or renters. Qualifying facilties include single-
family homes, manufactured homes and aparments. Program benefits are free to
qualifying customers with the project costs being paid by a combination of company
incentives and state and/or federal fuding.
Table 5 sumarizes the program results for 2008. The reported energy savings is based
on measured savings documented in an analysis dated August 30, 2006 completed by
Quantec. An impact evaluation to determine actual kWh savings is scheduled to occur in
2010. The expenditues of$164,578 are those paid by Rocky Mountain Power. Of these
expenditues, $156,237 or 95% of the costs incured are for agency administration and
program incentives with the remaining costs attibutable to utilty admnistration. Funds
received by the agency from other sources (state or federal fuding) are not included.
Rocky Mountain Power's program provided fuding towards the weatherization of 93
qualifying homes in 2008 with an average program cost per home of$I,770.
Table 5. Low Income Weatheriation Penormance
2008 Pro2ram Performance
kWh Savings 204,173
Expenditures $164,578
Completed Homes 93
Number of homes receiving specific measures were as follows:
Ceiling Insulation 34
Floor Insulation 16
Wall Insulation 4
Replacement Windows 44
Storm Windows 10
Duct Insulation 5
Insulated Doors 66
Attic Ventilation 24
Infiltration 59
9
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Water Pipe Insulation 67
Water Heater Repair 7
Furace Repair/tune up 24
Furace replacement 3
Compact Florescent Light Bulbs 88
Refrgerators 1
Health and safety 57
The 2008 Low Income Weatherization program was cost effective from both a utilty cost
test and total resource cost test perspective. See Table 16 for cost test results.
Non-residential Energy Efficiency
Irrigation Energy Savers
Irrigation Energy Savers (Schedule 155) was available in 2008 to Idaho irrigation
customers taing retail service on Schedule 10 through a company contract with a third-
pary program delivery vendor, Franlin Soil and Water Conservation Distrct. The
program design is intended to be the energy effciency complement to the irrigation load
control programs offered under Schedules 72 & 72A. The 2008 program included the
following customer service and measure components:
. Equipment Exchange - Provides new stadard brass sprinker nozzles to replace
worn ones on hand lines, wheel lines and solid set sprinklers systems. Gasket and
drain equipment also qualifies.
. Pivot and Linear Equipment Upgrades - Incentives are provided for certin
pivot and linear system measures including sprinkler packages and regulators.
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 irrgation system to promote irrgation management and identify
energy savings opportties. Ths consultation provides information prior to a
ful pump test.
. Pump Testing - The pump test includes directly measurng pump lift, flow,
electrical demands and system pressures 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
quatify 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
stadard formula tied to costs and first year energy savings.
10
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
2008 Pro~ram Performance
kWh 1,857,176
Tota expenditues $268,058
Incentives $168,938
Paricipation
Unique customers -estimated 140
Nozzles 8,643
Gaskets 15,943
Drains 1,803
Regulators 338
Sprinkler packages 92
System analysis and upgrades completed 71lS
Table 6. Irrigation Energy Savers Program Performance
Key program changes in 2008 included the removal ofthe "subject to fuding
availabilty" language from the program tariff (Case No. PAC-E-08-1) and a change in
the company's contracted third-par program delivery vendor from Franlin Soil and
Water Conservation District to Nexant, Inc. Nexant assumed program delivery
responsibilties effective in 2009.
The 2008 Irrgation Energy Savers program was cost-effective from both a utility cost
test and total resource cost perspective. See Table 17 for cost test results.
FinAnswer Express
The Finswer Express program (Schedule 115) is available to Idaho business customers
excluding those served on Schedule 10, who are eligible for program services through the
Irrigation Effciency Savers program. The program is designed to help customers
improve the efficiency of their new or replacement lighting, motors, and other equipment
purchases by providing prescriptive or pre-defined incentives for the most common
efficiency measures. It's quick and easy and designed to operate in conjunction with the
Energy FinAnswer program (Schedule 125), a program designed for more complex new
construction and retrofit projects. Although incentives available var, the program
provides incentives for both new constrction and retrofit projects.
The program is primarily marketed through local trade alles who receive support from a
company provided sales and training team. Twenty-eight trade alles have signed
company program paricipation agreements as of the end of2008; this represents an
increase of seven trade-allies or sales chanels over 2007.
18 Projects with equipment installed and inspected in 2008
11
Rocky Mountan Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table 7. FinAnswer Express Program Performance
2008 Pro2ram Performance
kWh 1,302,858
Total expenditures $166,7561'1
Incentives $83,437LU
Paricipants 20L1
Program savings were comparable to 2007 results despite several customers on the
program's waiting list for analysis or incentives being transferred to the Energy
FinAswer program for services in May 2008 when that program was introduced.
Changes to the FinAswer Express program, proposed in Case No. PAC-E-08-01, were
effective May 1,2008. They included removing the "subject to fuding availabilty"
language, adding new measures eligible for prescriptive incentives, adding a separate
incentive table for lighting retrofits and new constrction/major renovation. Changes also
included revisions to program delivery mechansms, including moving premium
effciency motors from point of purchase to post-purchase and modify new
constrction/major renovation lighting from a pre-purchase incentive agreement to post-
purchase incentive application. Lastly, the application of percentage of project cost
incentive caps was moved from the measure level to the project level in order to
encourage more comprehensive projects.
The 2008 Finswer Express program was cost effective from both a utilty cost test and
tota resource cost test perspective. See Table 18 for cost test results.
Energy FinAnswer
The Energy FinAswer program (Schedule 125) was approved in Idaho effective May 1,
2008. The program replaced the loan based program of the same name. It was initially
included in the company's original program fiing in 2005 however was later removed
from the filing in 2006 in order to better align the DSM program expenditues with
available fuding under the original collection rate approved by the Commission.
The program provides company-fuded energy engineering, incentives of$0.l2 per kWh
of first year energy savings and $50 per kW of average monthy demand savings up to a
cap of 50% 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 Finswer Express program. In addition to
customer incentives, the program provides design team honorarums (a finder fee for new
19 Expenditues include $14,758 of project specific engineering costs.
2°This amount represents total incentives paid in 2008, not necessarily attched directly to savings reported
in 2008. Incentives used for the cost effectiveness analysis are $85,722.21 Customer count of completed projects. Deviation from 2007 anual report data which included
customers on the program's waiting list for fuding.
12
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
projects) and design team incentives for new construction projects exceeding current
Idaho energy code by at least 10%.
Table 8. Energy FinAnswer Program Performance
2008 Pro2ram Performance
kWh 395,181
Total expenditures $121,192LL
Incentives $27,716 Lj
Paricipants 5L4
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
The Northwest Energy Effciency Allance (NEEA) is a non-profit organzation working
to encourage the development and adoption of energy effcient products and services
through a regional market transformation modeL. NEEA is supported by the region's
electric utilties, public benefits administrators, state governents, public interest groups
and effciency industry representatives.
The company provides fuding for NEEA through a multi-year commitment helping
support their activities in Idaho and Washington. NEEA activities for all sectors are fully.
described on their web site at ww.nwallance.org. Rocky Mountain Power fuding
allocated to Idaho for NEEA in 2008 was $317,339. The associated Idaho savings as
reported by NEEA for the same period were 5,146,416 kWh.
For the results displayed in the next section, energy savings from NEEA activities were
allocated to customer sectors based on information provided by NEEA. This allocation is
based on region-wide NEEA results by sector. The Idaho fuding was allocated to
customer sectors in the same ratio as the energy savings.
In addition to fuding, the company paricipates in the sector advisory groups, provides
input on NEEA activity effectiveness, and works to coordinate the delivery of NEE A
products and serves with those of the company's programs. The company continues to
work with NEEA regarding ways to increase their activities and results across all sectors .
and in smaller and more rual markets such as Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho service
territory.
Overall Revenues, Expenditures and Results
This section ilustrates how program revenues were collected and spent by customer
sector as well as provides information on those sectors generating the greatest results.
22 Expenditues include $80,250 of project specific engineerig costs for projects completed in 2008 and
progress payments on projects in various stages of completion.23 Incentives included in the Customer Efficiency Services balancing account which aligns with incentives
for measures intalled in 2008 and used for the cost effectiveness analysis within this report.24 Customer count of completed projects only.
13
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
The information represents revenues and costs for calendar year 2008 only. Additional
detal by month is included in Appendix One. Program revenues and costs include only
those that are collected and accounted for through the Customer Effciency Servces
balancing account and therefore exclude the costs and revenues associated with the
irrgation load management program customer paricipation credits.
Table 9. 2008 Revenue by Customer Type25
Public Street &
Highway
0%
Irrigation
37%
Residential
38%
Revenue from Public Street and Highway is $12,985 which is less than 1%.
25 Customer Effciency Services Rate Adjustment Revenues, Schedule 191
14
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table 10. 2008 Expenditures by Type of Program26
Load management
66%
Energy effciency
34%
Table 11 - 2008 Energy Effciency Expenditures by Customer Type
Irrigation
16%
Residential
63%
26 Percent of expenditues accounted for and collected through the Customer Effciency Services Rate
Adjustment, Schedule 191. Excludes irigation load management grower paricipation Load Service Credits
15
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table 12 - 2008 Energy Effciency Results by Customer Type
Irrigation
18%
Residential
59%
Program Cost Effectiveness
As noted in the Executive Sumar and fuher described in ths report, with the
exception of the Home Energy Savings program (Schedule 118), individual programs
were cost effective based on the utility cost and the tota resource cost tests as was the
aggregate of the overall portfolio of programs offered by the company.
The cost effectiveness analysis of individual programs in 2008 was calculated using
actual expenditures and reported savings. An energy efficiency portfolio level assessment
is also provided. Deemed savings estimates where applicable (primarily residential
programs) were the same as those used in the planing estimates.
As discussed in the 2007 report, all energy savings reporting in this report is on a net
basis at the customer site. Net to gross estimates and allowances for line losses utilizing
the company's 2004 line loss study are reflected in the cost effectiveness information
provided below. This reporting is consistent with the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council's 5th and 6th Power Planes) and represents a change from last year's report. An
additional change in cost effectiveness analysis is specific to the Home Energy Savings
program. In the prior years, measures were separated into lighting and non-lighting. Non-
lighting measure life was set at 15 years. With larger insulation paicipation this year,
measures for this program are separated into lighting, non-lighting and weatherization,
which are assigned a 45 year measure life consistent with the Regional Techncal Foru
(RTF). Measure lives for lighting and non-lighting remain the same as used in prior
analyses.
16
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Cost effectiveness calculations also used the net-to-gross assumptions used in the
planng estimates. The energy savings attibuted to the program are shaped according to
end-use specific load shapes (the hourly calculation of when energy is used for the
various program measures being installed). Program costs and the value of the energy
savings are then compared on a present value basis with the company's 2007 Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP) calculated decrement values for DSM savings. The decrement
values are fully shaped to represent the 8,760 hourly values that exist withn a calendar
year. By matching the hourly savings with the hourly avoided costs, both energy and
capacity impacts are recognzed. As is the industr stadard, the California Standard
Practice Manual cost effectiveness tests were used in the assessment of program cost
effectiveness. The cost effective analysis of the Irrgation Load Control program is based
on capacity value since energy usage is shifted and there are no energy savings. See the
2008 seasonal report for a full discussion. Results by individual program are displayed in
the Tables 13 through 19 below. Tables 20 and 21 display the residential and non-
residential energy efficiency program portfolio test results respectively. Table 22 displays
the aggregate portfolio test results of the overall energy efficiency program set.
Table 13. Irrigation Load Control (72 & 72A) - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
BenefiVQ)t
Q)ts Beefits27 Net Beefits Raio
Tot Raræ Q) Tes (1) t-$2,914,347.19 $13,58,912.92 $10,675,56.73 4.00Pd
Utlity Q) Tes (LC $8,917,785.14 $13,58,912.92 $4,67,127.78 1.52
Ra irr Tes (RIM)$8,917,785.14 $13,58,912.92 $4,67,127.78 1.52
Padi: Q) Tes (Pe $0 $6,00,437.95 $6,00,437.95 NA
Table 14. Home Energy Savings - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All Mæures AC: IRP 46% L. Dere
Levelized BenefiVCo
$/kWi Cos Befits Net Benefits Raio
Tot Raræ Q) Tes (PT)0.105 $5,821 $413,00 ($132,218)0.758+ Coon Pd
Tot Raræ Q) Tes (1)0.105 $5,821 $376,00 ($169,819)0.68t-Pd
Utlit Q) Tes (LC 0.08 $4,610 $376,00 ($81,60)0.82
Rae Irr Tes (RIM)$75,69 $376,00 ($3,69)0.48
Padi: Q) Tes (Pe $8,211 $479,34 $31,138 5.43
Ufe Reue irr ($I)$0.00
27 For complete discussion of
the valuation of program benefits, see 2008 seasonal report.
17
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table 15. See Ya Later Refrigerator - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All Mæure AC: IRP 46% LF Derent
Levelized Befit/Cot
$IkW'Cos Benefits N=t Benefits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (PT)0.03 $0,261 $185,977 $9,716 2.1fß+ Coon Pd
Tot Reræ Co Tes (T)0.03 $0,261 $169,070 $8,80 1.96I\Pd
Uility Co Tes (LC 0.04 $105,78 $169,070 $6,28 1.59
Rae Irr Tes (RIM)$2,37 $169,070 ($121,30)0.58
Padi: Co Tes (Pe ($19,524)$231,007 $2,531 nla
Ufee Re 1f1 ($I)$0.00
Table 16. Low Income Weatheriation - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All Mæure AC: IRP 46% LF Derent
Levelized Beefit/Cot
$IkW'Cos Befits N=t Beefits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (PT)0.0014 $154,167 $21,99 $47,82 1.310+ Coon Pd
Tot Re Co Tes (T)0.0014 $154,167 $183,63 $2,46 1.191I\Pd
Uility Co Tes (LC 0.0014 $154,167 $183,63 $2,46 1.191
Ra Irr Tes (RIM)$375,94 $183,63 ($192310)0.48
Padi: Co Tes (Pe $0 $21,773 $21,77 nla
Ufee Reue 1f1 ($I)$O.cx127
Table 17. Irrigation Enerio Savers - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All Mæures AC: IRP 16% LF Dereint
Levelized Beefit/Co
$IkW'Cos Beefits N=t Benefits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (PT)0.072 $4,187 $65,215 $189,028 1.43+ Coon Pd
Tot Reræ Co Tes (T)0.072 $4,187 $5,378 $132,191 1.30I\Pd
Uility Co Tes (LC 0.0417 $2,287 $5,378 $318,00 2.271
Rae Irr Tes (RIM)$5,35 $5,378 ($18,98)0.95
Padi: Co Tes (Pe $185,89 $37,070 $151,170 1.813
Ufe Reue 1f1 ($I)$O.00176
18
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table 18. FinAnswer Express - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All ivures AC: IRP 65% LF Derent
Levelized Beefit/Cot
$'kWi Cos Befits Net Befits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (Pl)0.02 $371,331 $81,20 $519,87 2.40+ Coai Pd
Tot Re Co Tes (T)0.02 $371,331 $810,189 $4,85 2.182toPd
utlit Co Tes (Le 0.0125 $155,701 $810,189 $6,48 5.20
Ra Ini Tes (RIM)$81,151 $810,189 ($4,96)0.95
Pacii: Co Tes (Pe $215,63 $8,45 $6,82 4.120
Ufe Reue IrT ($I)$0.00
Table 19. Energy FinAnswer - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All ivure AC: IRP 65% LF Derent
Levelized Benefit/Cot
$'kWi Cos Befits Net Beefits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (Pl)0.041 $146,98 $207,791 $6,80 1.414+ Coai Pd
Tot Re Co Tes (T)0.041 $146,98 $188,901 $41,918 1.28toPd
utlity Co Tes (Le 0.0070 $113,158 $188,901 $75,743 1.00
Rae Ini Tes (RIM)$2,23 $188,901 ($47,33)0.80
Pacii: Co Tes (Pe $3,82 $163,90 $130,08 4.84
Ufee Reue IrT ($I)$0.00
Table 20. Residential Energy Efficiency Portfolio - 2008 Cost Effectieness
All ivure
Levelized Benefit/Cot
$'kW Cos Befits Net Befits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (Pl)0.072 $700,250 $81,573 $15,323 1.019+ Coai Pd
Tot Re Co Tes (T)0.072 $700,25 $78,700 ($5,547)0.92toPd
utlit Co Tes (Le 0.00 $717,56 $7,700 $11,140 1.016
Ra Ini Tes (RIM)$1,44,015 $7,700 ($713,312)0.50
Pacii: Co Tes (Pe $6,68 $9 129 $æ,442 13.571
Ufee Re IrT ($I .$O.(X77
19
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
Table 21. Non-Residential Energy Effciency Portfolio - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All Mæure
Levelized BeefiVCot
$!kW Cos Befits Net Beefits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (PT)0.0515 $9,50 $1,724,214 $769,714 1.80+ Coai Pd
Tot Reræ Co Tes (l)0.0515 $9,50 $1,56,467 $612,007 1.642I'Pd
Uility Co Tes (UC 0.02 $519,146 $1,56,46 $1,04,321 3.019
Ra II' Tes (RIM)$1,674,742 $1,56,46 ($107,274)0.9æ
Pad~ Co Tes (Pe $4,35 $1,38,427 $9,073 3.191U~ Re II" ($')$O.rt
Table 22. Overall Energy Effciency Portolio - 2008 Cost Effectiveness
All Mæures
Levelized Beefit/Cot
$!kWl Cos Befits Net Benefits Raio
Tot Reræ Co Tes (PT)0.05 $1,740,750 $2,525,787 $785,037 1.451+ Coai Pd
Tot Reræ Co Tes (l)0.05 $1,740,750 $229,170 $5,42 1.319I'Pd
Utlit Co Tes (UC 0.0418 $1,23,700 $2,29,170 $1,05,46 1.85
Rae II' Tes (RIM)$3,116,757 $2,29,170 ($8,50)0.737
Pad~ Co Tes (Pe $5,041 $2,321,Sf $1,817,515 4.60
Ufe Reue II" ($')$O.00197010
Customer Efficiency Services Balancing Account
The intended objective in the management of the Customer Effciency Services balancing
account is to, as closely as possible, align anual revenues collected to program
expenditures and maintain a near zero balance over a set planing period, typically based
on a program or calendar year basis. The adjustment the Commission approved to
Schedule 191 revenue collections effective in May, 2008 (PAC-E-08-1) was designed to
accommodate the addition of the Energy FinAswer program, to relieve the pent up
demand for business services (retire the project wait list for fuding) and help cover
increasing program delivery costs associated with the 2007 and 2008 irrigation load
management programs.
The May adjustment was designed to collect $4.8 milion a year in revenues against a
program expense forecast of approximately $9.3M for the 2008-2009 period (at the time
of the adjustment there was an unded balance in the balancing account of
approximately $350,000). Building upon those revenues and forecasted expenditures, the
timeline for bringing the Customer Effciency Service balancing account into balance
20
Rocky Mountain Power Idaho 2008 DSM Anual Report
was end of year 2009. As a result, the company would not have expected for the account
to be in balance as of the wrting of this report. However, a more recent forecast of
program expenditues for 2009 indicates they are higher than the $4.5 milion forecast
used in the May 2008 adjustment analysis (new forecast is $5.6 milion). The higher
program expenditues are being driven primarily by increased load management field
expenses as the program continues to grow and contractual delivery is revisited. This
higher program re-forecast combined with the curent unfuded account balance suggests
that in order to balance the account by the end of 2009, as originally intended, another
adjustment may be necessary.
Table 23 - Preliminary Balancing Account Analysis
Account balance - Dec 2008 $770,450
2009 program expenditure
forecast $5,630,000
2009 estimated revenue (f
3.72%$(4,800,000)
Projected short fall $1,600,450
Within the next 90 days, the company will refine the forecasts used in this analysis to; a)
determine whether an adjustment is waranted, b) determine the magnitude and c) timing
of the required filings. Any adjustment fiing wil be provided under a separate docket.
21
Appendix One - Balancing Account Activity
IDAæMPACQ - CA. All00 OF CANGQW
M:hl Pr
Co - Fix O!ay Ca'l Qian Poåe BaAslmioRå I1 aø A: Ba ~Rå Táa Ca Co
10 Ja 34,7335 43.00 34,775.35 3.(XL%,430011 Fe 35,20.86 131.00 70,187.21 3.00Æi 174.00
12 Mi 151,213.27 35.00 221,76.48 3.00Æi 53.00
1 ,Al 127,32.50 714.00 34,00.98 3.00Æi 1,2500
2 M:163,2888 (58610.25 1,00.00 454861 3.00Æi 2,25.00
3 Ji.136,316.52 (193,98.84)1,00.00 3980.29 3.00%3,324.00
4Júy 168,024.04 (27,55.72)86.00 29,213.61 3.00%4,193.005Ag181,5m.58 (2.1,28 14)64.00 218,47.05 3.00Æi 4,83.006 Se 120,20.82 (215,571.01)42.00 123,541.86 3.00Æi 5,26.007 O:97,3052 (127,0065 271.00 93,312.73 3.00Æi 5,53.008 I\107,6638 (118,48.94)22.00 8270.17 3.00Æi 5,755009 Ds 20,043)(128,0491)2900 156,00.56 3.00Æi 6,050020to$1,524,29.02 $$ (1,374,34.46) $6,05.00
1 Ja 77,155.87 (134,98.61)53.00 98,70.82 5.00Æi 6,58002 Fe 113,58.67 (12.,7702)38.00 85,90.47 5.00Æi 6,96.003Mi20475.39 (112,310.16)5400 176,615.70 5.00Æi 7,513.00
4,A1 1727r.OO (104,125.12)87.00 246159.64 5.00Æi 8,3900
5 M:3),87.22 (140,42.96)1,36.00 411,9890 5.00Æi 9,70.00
6 Ji.321,744.51 (25,03.65 1,8600 48,55.76 5.00Æi 11,62.00
7 Ji 107,478.70 (311,361.25 1,5900 28,274.21 5.00Æi 13,224.008Ag28,87.53 (27,631.43)1,216.00 3)1,72.31 5.00Æi 14,44.009 Se 76,199.65 (215,813.66)96.00 163001.3)5.00%15,40.00
10 Qid:97,571.43 (136,50.43)5900 124,69.3)5.00Æi 16,00.00
11 I\22,90.71 (117,181.00)750.00 23,100.92 5.00Æi 16,75.0012 Ds 13),99.63 (127,8291)99.00 240,319.64 5.00Æi 17,745002/to $ 2,120,64.37 $$ (2,04,02.29) $11,6900
1 Jai.25,561.54 (147,38.47)1,22.00 3472.71 5.00Æi 18,97.002 Fe 34,00.00 (137,67.43)1,89.00 5654.37 5.00Æi 20,86.00
3 Ma 4800.15 (122,724.41)3,00.00 92,514.11 5.00Æi 23,95.00
4,A1 324,00.97 (111,513.64)4,:m.00 1,14290.44 5.00Æi 28,2.00
5 M:759,26.82 (217,70.20)5,89.00 1,69,3500 5.00Æi 34,149.00
6 Ji.00,571.17 (481,751.00)7,3J.oo 1,8247723 5.00Æi 41,45.00
7 Júy 29,2Z.oo (147,0711)6,661.00 1,38,3072 5.00Æi 48,115.008Ag214,49.00 (140,89.93)4,65.00 8555.39 5.00Æi 5277.009 Se 631,82.89 (56,59.00)3,717.00 92,!m.19 5.00Æi 56,48.0010 O:29,219;36 (39,59.59 3,67.00 83,0096 5.00Æi 00,157.00
11 I\:m,Em.48 (~,00.29 3,40.00 83,88.15 5.00Æi 63,63.0012 Ds 247,3535 (318,136.66)3,34.00 77,45.84 5.00%66,981.0020to$ 4,76,95.02 $$ (4,28,05.82 $49,2300