20080214Application.pdf

~ ROCKY MOUNTAIN
.~ ~ ~2~~~ORP
Februar 14,2008
VI OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
RECE
iûGß fEB itt Î\i'1 '0: 32
IDAHO YUBUCS10f
UTiLiTIES i;OMMIS -
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5983
Attention:Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secreta
Re:Case No. P AC-E-08-01
In the Matter of the Application of Rocky Mountain Power for an Increase to
the Customer Effciency Services Rate Adjustment and Enhancement to
Energy Effciency Programs for Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, and
Residential Customers.
Rocky Mountain Power, a division ofPacifiCorp, hereby submits for filing an original and seven
(7) copies of its Application in the above referenced matter..Service of pleadings, exhbits, orders and other documents relating to this proceeding should be
served on the following:
Brian Dickman
Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager
201 South Ma, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: Brian.Dickman(fPacifiCorp.com
Daniel Solander
Senior Counsel
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: Daniel.Solander(fPacifiCorp.com
It is respectfully requested that all formal correspondence and Staff requests regarding this
material be addressed to:
Bye-mail (preferred):dataequest~paificorp.com
By regular mail:Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97232
By fax:[phone]e/
.
.
.
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Februar 14,2008
Page 2
Any informal inquiries may also be directed to Brian Dickman at 801-220-4975.
Sincerely,
~:f cK et~
Vice President, Regulation
Enclosures
.
.
e
Daniel E. Solander
Senior Counsel
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City UT 84111
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Email: daniel.solander~pacificorp.com
10: 33
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR AN )
INCREASE TO THE CUSTOMER EFFICIENCY )
SERVICES RATE ADJUSTMENT AND )
ENHANCEMENT TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY )
PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL, )
INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL )
AND RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS )
CASE NO. PAC-E-08-01
APPLICATION
COMES NOW, Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp (the
"Company"), and in accordance with RP 052 and RP 201, et. seq., hereby applies to the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (the "Commission") for approval to: (1) adjust the
collection rate of the existing demand-side management ("DSM") cost recovery
mechanism (Schedule No. 191); (2) add a new energy efficiency program for Rocky
Mountain Power's commercial and industrial customers; and (3) make several
enhancements and changes to existing programs for business and residential customers
intended to improve program performance. To administer these programs, the Company
seeks to revise Schedule Nos. 115,155, and 191, add new Schedule No. 125, and cancel
Schedule Nos. 120 and 122 of its Tariff I.P.U.C. No. 1. The Company proposes to star
APPLICA nON OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 1
.offering the new or enhanced programs on April 1, 2008, and proposes the Schedule No.
191 adjustments become effective April 1, 2008.
In support of its Application, Rocky Mountain Power states:
1. Rocky Mountain Power does business as a public utility in the State of
Idaho and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission with regard to its public utilty
operations. Rocky Mountain Power also provides retail electric service in the states of
Utah and Wyoming.
2. This Application is fied pursuant Idaho Code §§ 61-301, -307, -622, and
-623. In paricular, Idaho Code § 61-623 empowers the Commission to determine the
propriety of proposed rate schedules, §§ 61-307 and -622 require Commission approval
prior to any increase in rates, and § 61-301 requires Idaho retail electric rates to be just
and reasonable..3.This Application is fied in compliance with Customer Information Rule
102 (IDAPA 31.21.02.102). Notices of the proposed rate change wil be included with
bils starting the week of February 25, 2008 and wil continue until all bils have been
sent with a notice. The Company estimates this wil take approximately 30 days from
date of filing. See Attachment 1 for a copy of the customer notice and the press release.
.
BACKGROUND
4. Beginning in 1989, the Company has offered a variety of DSM programs
to its customers. These programs have been designed to be cost-effective. On March 2,
2006, the Commission approved an enhanced set of DSM programs and cost recovery
through Schedule No. 191 which was applied to customers' bils beginning on May 1,
2006. The collection rate was set at 1.5% which was below the rate estimated to be
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 2
.needed by the Company to fully fund all reasonably available cost-effective resources.
The enhanced set of programs was designed to measure Idaho customer's willngness to
participate in programs and the Company's ability to deliver cost-effectively.
To manage collection and program expenses during the initial period, the
Company did not introduce the Energy FinAnswer program for business customers and
tied participation to funding availability for business energy effciency programs.
Funding limits restricted overall participation in the FinAnswer Express program
(Schedule No. 115) for business customers and requests for service are currently being
added to a waiting list with approximately 20 customers with requests totaing
approximately $180,000. While funding limits have not restricted paricipation in the
Irrigation Energy Savers program (Schedule No. 155) to date, service requests continue
to increase..5.Program performance, including expenditures, savings and assessments of
cost..effectiveness, as well as the balancing account activity associated with Schedule No.
191 for the period from January 12,2006 through March 31,2007 was provided in the
Annual Report of Idaho Demand Side Management Activities filed May 1, 2007, under
Case No. PAC-E-05-1 O.
The energy effciency programs in place in 2007 were cost-effective based on a
preliminary assessment using actual expenditures and achieved savings for 2007. The
results from this preliminary assessment are included in Attachment 2. The Irrgation
Load Control Credit Rider program was cost-effective for 2007 using actual costs and
achieved capacity reductions. This information was provided to the Commission on
December 19,2007. The DSM annual report for 2007 wil be fied with the Commission.
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 3
.on or before March 15, 2008, and wil contain complete information on the 2007 program
performance.
6. The Company contracted with Quantec, LLC to perform a DSM potential
assessment study to address the potential for DSM-related resource opportunities in all
six states served by PacifiCorp, across all customer sectors, and for all types of DSM
resources, i.e., capacity and energy. In June 2007, the Company received the final report,
Assessment of Long-Term System-Wide Potential for Demand Side and Other
Supplemental Resources (the "Potential Study"). The Potential Study indicates for a 20-
year period, based on preliminary cost-effectiveness screens and third pary assumptions
surrounding participation, the average anual target for Idaho energy efficiency resources
is 13,140 MWh per year. This is higher than the approximately 8,000 MWh acquired in
.2007 with the existing programs fuded at the currently authorized collection amount.
7. As part of the Idaho general rate case, Case No. PAC-E-07-05, the
Company agreed to revisit the valuation methodology used to determine the credits
available for Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider paricipants (Schedule No. 72A) when
a dispatchable provision was included. The settlement stipulation approved by the
Commission included increased incentive credits in Schedule No. 72A. Consequently,
paricipation is expected to increase to approximately 150MW in 2008 and beyond.
These participation increases drive a resultant increase in field equipment and delivery
expenses that cannot be accommodated with the curent collection rate while also
maintaining the balancing account balance close to zero annually.l
.1 The customer incentives for the Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider program are recovered through base
rates rather than through the Schedule No. i 9 i Customer Efficiency Services Rate Adjustment. This
treatment is different than load management or energy effciency program investments in the Company's
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 4
.8. The factors described above have caused the Company to prepare this
Application to adjust the collection rate, enhance existing programs and add a new
program offering for business customers.
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS
9. Schedule No. 191 - ('Customer Efficiency Services"
The Company proposes to adjust the collection rate for this Schedule No. 191
from 1.5% to 3.72% of retail revenue for a net increase of 2.22%. This collection rate is
designed to fund projected program activity for 2008 and 2009 and retire the curent back
balance of $349,000 by the end of 2009, for an average of $4.86 milion per year. As
noted, it does not fund an estimated $3.9 milion in Schedule No. 72A irrigation load
management incentives currently recovered in the Company's base rates..Administration of the balancing account, including carrying charges, prudence
review, and separating these costs from the revenue requirements in general rate cases
would continue as outlined in Order No. 29976.
10. Schedule No. 115 - FinAnswer Express
The FinAnswer Express program has been available to Idaho customers since
January 2006 and provides prescriptive incentives for common energy effciency
measures with minimal transaction complexity. It is designed to operate in conjunction
with the Energy FinAnswer program, as it does in the Company's other jurisdictions.
However, in Idaho it has been the only option available for non-irrigation business
customers. As a result, requests for service and incentives exceed available fuding and
current requests are being placed on a waiting list pending additional funding..other jurisdictions. While the Company intends to address this at some point, it is not part of this
Application.
APPLICA TlON OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 5
.
Enhancements proposed in this filing are based on proven program design and
delivery experience in other jurisdictions. The changes are designed to increase
participation and reflect best available data on market costs and appropriate incentive
levels. T,hese changes: (1) add new measures eligible for prescriptive incentives; (2) add
a separate incentive table for lighting retrofits and new construction/major renovation;
and (3) revise some delivery mechanisms, including moving premium efficiency motors
from point of purchase to post-purchase, and modifying new construction/major
renovation lighting from a pre-purchase incentive agreement to post-purchase incentive
application. In addition, the application of percentage of project cost incentive caps
moves from the measure level to the project leveL.
Similar to the services provided by the Company in its other jurisdictions, the
Company is offering sales support functions to assist equipment distributors and
contractors in their sales and installation of high effciency equipment. This capabilty is
being maintained in anticipation of full program funding. Program budgets and savings
are included in Attachment 3. Attachment 4 summarizes cost-effectiveness results.
.
.
11. Schedule No. 155- Irrigation Energy Savers
Equipment exchange has been the most popular measure and has been available
since spring 2006. The only change to Schedule No. 155 proposed in this Application is
removal of the "funding availability" language.
Current information indicates customers are now primarily interested in system
upgrades, including the installation of variable frequency drives on pumps. Based on the
program focus moving from an equipment exchange approach to an analysis based
approach, the Company is seeking proposals for program administration to help ensure
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 6
.
that program delivery is done by a program administrator with the best combination of
competitive pricing, irrigation, and electric energy effciency experience. The curent
program administrator will continue to offer the program during this process.
For the purposes of determining cost-effectiveness, costs and savings, the
paricipation mix for the next two years has been shifted to include more variable
frequency drives. The program is forecast to be cost-effective. See Attachment 3 for
budgets and savings, and see Attachment 4 for the cost-effective analysis.
12. Schedule No. 118 - Home Energy Savings
The Home Energy Savings program has been offered since May 31, 2006, and
provides incentives for more efficient products and services for residential customers
with new or existing homes. The program encompasses equipment categories including
appliances, lighting, cooling equipment, insulation, and windows, and services such as
duct sealing and air conditioning equipment tune-ups. Schedule No. 118 is a broad
enabling tariff outlining customer eligibility, delivery through a program administrator,
and directing customers to a dedicated program web site. While the structure of Schedule
No. 118 does not require tariff changes be fied to implement program changes, an
overyiew of the program changes is being provided below for informational puroses.
All changes wil be posted on the program web site per Schedule No. 118, Provisions of
Service 4 and 5, no later than February 15, 2008, with an April 1, 2008 effective date.
The web site may be found at www.homeenergvsavings.netlidaho/home and provides full
information, including incentive levels and eligible equipment specifications.
Measures with highest paricipation to date include appliances and lighting.
Improved market data from program operation since spring of 2006 has generated the
.
.
APPLICA nON OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 7
.following recommendations for changes to Increase participation and better align
incentive levels with Idaho market costs.
. Washing machines: Split measure into two tiers for effciency and incentives.
o Tier 1: Modified Energy Factor (MEF) 1.72-1.99, $50 incentive
o Tier 2: Modified Energy Factor (MEF) 2.0+, $100 incentive
. Dishwashers: Change 0.68 Energy Factor (EF) to 0.65 EF to align program
equipment eligibility with the final ENERGY STAR qualifications of 0.65 EF.
. Water heaters: Equipment eligibility is currently based on tan size. This
change would consolidate tank sizes, impose a minimum size of 40 gallons and
use a minimum EF of 0.93.
. Lighting: To further increase CFL penetration, including specialty bulbs, and
respond to changing CFL prices, the Company is proposing to use the mark-
down/buy-down mid-market incentives to bring the final cost to the customer to
$.99 - $2.75 and to offer lighting incentives year round.
.. Evaporative cooling: Based on price, availability, ease of installation and
experience in other markets, the incentive offer will be adjusted to $100 for the
end user, the contractor incentive will be discontinued, and the measure will be
promoted at the retail leveL.
. Insulation: The initial incentive of $ 1.00 per square foot of insulation was based
on Regional Technical Forum (RTF) data. Idaho market data indicates costs are
lower. The proposed new incentive is $0.50 per square foot for wall, attic and
floor insulation, with a $650 per home cap.
. Provide incentives for heat pumps: Add incentives for either a high efficiency
heat pump upgrade (baseline heat pump to high efficiency heat pump) or for the
conversion of an electric heating system to a heat pump.
o Minimum effciency requirements are SEER 14; EER 11.5; HSPF 8.2.
o Customer incentives for upgrades to $250 with a $25 dealer incentive.
o Conversions are eligible for a $350 customer incentive and a $25 dealer
incentive.
These changes are reflected in the summary of budgets and savings in Attachment 3, and
a cost-effectiveness summary is provided in Attachment 4.
.
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 8
.
DESCRIPTION OF NEW PROGRAM
13. Schedule No. J 25 - Energy FinAnswer
The Energy FinAnswer program was operational in Idaho as a loan~based energy
efficiency program for approximately 15 years, ending January 12, 2006. The Company
intended to offer a similar incentive-based program beginning in 2006 as a complement
to the FinAnswer. Express program. However, the funding limitations prompted the
Company to delay introduction of the enhanced program until fuding was available.
The loan-based program was covered by existing Schedule Nos. 120 and 122, which
provided program-funded energy engineering and loans to business customers. In 2006,
these Schedules were modified to include "no new service" language to align service
requests with available funding. As described below, these Schedules wil now be
canceled.
In this fiing, Rocky Mountain Power proposes to offer the incentive-based
Energy FinAnswer program through a new Schedule No. 125, which provides Company-
funded energy engineering, incentives of $0.12 for first year energy savings (kWh) and
$50 per àVerage monthly demand savings (kW), up to 50% of the approved project cost.
This program is designed to target comprehensive projects requiring project specific
analysis and will operate as a complement to the FinAnswer Express program. The
enhancements are designed to increase new construction participation and early program
involvement to capture lost opportunities. Enhancements include design team
honorariums (finder fees for new projects) and design team incentives (in addition to
enhanced customer incentives) for new construction projects exceeding the current Idaho
energy code by at least 10%.
.
.
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 9
.The Energy FinAnswer in Idaho wil be comparable to the Company's program in
its other jurisdictions. Projected program budgets and savings are outlined in Attachment
3, and the cost-effectiveness of the Energy FinAnswer program is outlined in Attchment
4.
PROGRAMS FUNDED BY SCHEDULE 191
NOT CHANGED IN THIS FILING
14. Schedule No. 117 - Refrigerator Recycling
Incentives and the program expiration date for the residential Refrigerator
Recycling program were modified in June 2007 through Advice No. 07-09. No fuher
changes to this Schedule are included in this Application. Forecasted expenditures and
savings are shown in Attachment 3, and cost-effectiveness is shown in Attachment 4.
15. Schedule No. 21 - Low Income Weatherization Services.The Company's current low income weatherization program has been in place for
approximately 15 years. Program changes were made in April 2007 and no additional
changes are included in this fiing. Forecasted expenditures and savings are shown in
Attachment 3, and cost-effectiveness is shown in Attachment 4.
16. Schedule Nos. 72 and 72A - Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider
This program was enhanced per the agreement reached in the Company's general
rate case approved by the Commission in Case No. PAC-E-07-05. Additional
modifications were proposed in Advice No. 08-01 and approved by the Commission on
February 11, 2008. Changes included new incentive levels, reduction in maximum
dispatch hours, increase in dispatch duration, and revision of the minimum pump size..The Company continues to work with the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association and
APPLICA nON OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 10
.Commission staff to refine the methodology used to compute the value of this program
and the corresponding calculation of incentive credits provided to participants. No
further changes are requested in this Application. Field equipment costs and demand
reductions are included in Attachment 3.
DESCRIPTIONS OF TARIFFS BEING CANCELLED
17. Schedule Nos. 120 and 122 -- Commercial Energy Services
These Schedules were closed to new service with the 2006 filing but remained as
approved schedules to administer the loans originated under the Schedules. The
remaining loans have now been paid off and the Company is proposing to cancel the
Schedules in this filing. As described above, the enhanced Energy FinAnswer program is
proposed to be offered through a new Schedule No. 125..TARIFFS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
18. Attachment 1 to this application contains Customer Rule 102
implementation information, including the customer notice and the press release.
Attachment 2 contains a preliminary cost effectiveness assessment of 2007 program
performance; a final assessment wil be provided to the Commission no later than March
15, 2008. Attachment 3 contains Rocky Mountain Power's projected program
expenditures, and Attachment 4 contains a summary of cost-effective analysis forecasts
for 2008-2009, to support proposed Schedule No. 191 collections. Attachment 5 contains
Rocky Mountain Power's revised and new Electric Service Schedule Nos. 115, 125, 155,
and 191 and canceled Electric Service Schedule Nos. 120 and 122, in both clean and
legislative formats. Attachment 6 contains a market characterization and evaluation plan.for the new Energy FinAnswer program.Attachment 7 contains a market
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 11
.characterization report for the FinAnswer Express program. Attachment 8 contains Table
A which shows the effect across rate schedules of the proposed Schedule 191 rate
change.
MODIFIED PROCEDURE
16. Rocky Mountain Power believes that consideration of the proposals
contained in this Application does not require an evidentiary proceeding, and accordingly
the Company requests that this Application be processed under RP 201 allowing for
consideration of issues under modified procedure, i.e., by written submissions rather than
by an evidentiary hearing.
SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
17.Communications regarding this Application should be addressed to:.Brian Dickman
Idaho Regulatory Affairs
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (801) 220- 2798
E-mail: brian.dickman(fpacificorp.com
Daniel E. Solander
Senior Counsel
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City UT 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: daniel.solander(fpacificorp.com
In addition, Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests that all data requests
regarding this matter be addressed to:.
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 12
.Bye-mail (preferred):datarequest(ßpacificorp.com
By regular mail:Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
By facsimile:(503) 813~6060
Informal inquires also may be directed to Brian Dickman at [phone].
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests that the
Commission issue its Order under Modified Procedure approving new DSM tarff
Schedule No. 125, revised existing tariff Schedule Nos. 115, 155, and 191, and canceling
existing tariff Schedule Nos. 120 and 122 as described herein.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2008..Respectfully submitted,
~~.bI~Daniel E. Solander Ix
Attorney for PacifiCorp
.
APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 13
.
Attachment 2
PRELIMINARY 2007
PROGRAM
COST EFFECTIVENESS.
.
.
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

2
Id
a
h
o

2
0
0
7

D
e
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

C
o
s
t

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
To
t
a
l

P
o
r
t
o
l
i
o
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
6
7
$
1,
3
8
3
,
9
2
5
$
2,
1
9
0
,
1
4
2
$
80
6
,
2
1
7
1.
8
3
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
6
7
$
1,
3
8
3
,
9
2
5
$
1,
9
9
1
,
0
3
8
$
60
7
,
1
1
3
1.
4
3
9
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
0.
0
3
6
6
$
89
2
,
7
1
8
$
1,
9
9
1
,
0
3
8
$
1,
0
9
8
,
3
2
1
2.
2
3
0
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
2,
7
6
9
,
1
2
2
$
1,
9
9
1
,
0
3
8
$
(7
7
8
,
0
8
4
)
0.
7
1
9
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
49
1
,
2
0
8
$
2,
3
9
1
,
5
8
0
$
1,
9
0
0
,
3
7
2
4.
8
6
9
Li
f
e
C
y
c
1
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
1
8
6
8
0
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
6
3
$
47
8
,
4
9
2
$
68
6
,
5
4
5
$
20
8
,
0
5
3
1.
4
3
5
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
6
3
$
47
8
,
4
9
2
$
62
4
,
1
3
2
$
14
5
,
6
4
0
1.
0
4
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
5
4
9
$
46
6
,
4
4
5
$
62
4
,
1
3
2
$
15
7
,
6
8
7
1.
3
8
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
1,
0
9
9
,
3
8
3
$
62
4
,
1
3
2
$
(4
7
5
,
2
5
1
)
0.
5
6
8
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
12
,
0
4
7
$
83
1
,
6
0
5
$
81
9
,
5
5
7
69
.
0
2
9
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
1
3
8
4
3
5
No
n
-
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Le
v
e
l
i
z
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
7
1
$
90
5
,
4
3
3
$
1,
5
0
3
,
5
9
7
$
59
8
,
1
6
3
1.
6
6
1
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
7
1
$
90
5
,
4
3
3
$
1,
3
6
6
,
9
0
6
$
46
1
,
4
7
3
1.
5
1
0
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
2
6
9
$
42
6
,
2
7
3
$
1,
3
6
6
,
9
0
6
$
94
0
,
6
3
3
3.
2
0
7
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
1,
6
6
9
,
7
3
9
$
1,
3
6
6
,
9
0
6
$
(3
0
2
,
8
3
3
)
c.
g1
9
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
47
9
,
1
6
1
$
1,
5
5
9
,
9
7
5
$
1,
0
8
0
,
8
1
4
;-
.
:
~6
Li
f
e
C
y
c
1
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
5
7
1
8
4
::

.
:
:
:
:
1
.j
.
.
fi
'
¥
'
;
'
"
.
'
c.
u
20
0
7

Id
a
h
o

C
o
s
l

e
f
f
e
c
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

-

0
2
1
1
0
8
.
x
I
10
1
3
.Ç'i:~e(.v)
.
.
.
Ho
m
e

E
n
e
r
l
t
v

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

6
0
%

l
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
7
1
6
$
29
0
,
9
5
7
$
33
5
,
3
9
6
$
44
,
4
4
0
1.
5
3
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
7
1
6
$
29
0
,
9
5
7
$
30
4
,
9
0
6
$
13
,
9
4
9
1.
0
4
8
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
6
3
2
$
25
6
,
7
5
3
$
30
4
,
9
0
6
$
48
,
1
5
3
1.
8
8
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
56
7
,
1
3
1
$
30
4
,
9
0
6
$
(2
6
2
,
2
2
5
)
0.
5
3
8
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
34
,
0
2
4
$
40
9
,
1
4
5
$
37
4
,
9
4
1
11
.
9
6
2
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
8
3
2
Se
e

y
a

l
a
t
e
r
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

4
6
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
0
7
$
92
,
9
6
4
$
23
5
,
6
3
6
$
14
2
,
6
7
3
2.
5
3
5
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
0
7
$
92
,
9
6
4
$
21
4
,
2
1
5
$
12
1
,
2
5
1
2.
3
0
4
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
3
8
0
$
11
5
,
1
2
0
$
21
4
,
2
1
5
$
99
,
0
9
4
1.
8
6
1
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
34
6
,
6
6
2
$
21
4
,
2
1
5
$
(1
3
2
,
4
4
7
)
0.
6
1
8
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
(2
2
,
1
5
7
)
$
28
8
,
3
5
9
$
31
0
,
5
1
6
nl
a
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
3
8
5
8
0
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

4
6
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
6
5
5
$
94
,
5
7
2
$
11
5
,
5
1
3
$
20
,
9
4
1
1.
2
1
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
6
5
5
$
94
,
5
7
2
$
10
5
,
0
1
1
$
10
,
4
3
9
1.

1
0
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
6
5
5
$
94
,
5
7
2
$
10
5
,
0
1
1
$
10
,
4
3
9
1.

1
0
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
18
5
,
5
9
0
$
10
5
,
0
1
1
$
(8
0
,
5
7
9
)
0.
5
6
6
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
p
C
T
)
$
.
$
13
4
,
1
0
1
$
13
4
,
1
0
1
nl
a
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
1
6
20
0
7

I
d
a
h
o

C
o
s

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s

-

0
2
1
1
0
8

.
x
l
s
2o
f
3
.
.
.
Fi
n
A
n
s
w
e
r

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

6
5
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
8
8
$
51
8
,
3
2
4
$
93
2
,
7
4
7
$
41
4
,
4
2
3
1.
8
0
0
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
n
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
8
8
$
51
8
,
3
2
4
$
84
7
,
9
5
2
$
32
9
,
6
2
8
1.
6
3
6
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
1
2
7
$
16
9
,
5
2
0
$
84
7
,
9
5
2
$
67
8
,
4
3
2
5.
0
0
2
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
1,
0
7
7
,
0
2
7
$
84
7
,
9
5
2
$
(2
2
9
,
0
7
6
)
0.
7
8
7
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
34
8
,
8
0
4
$
1,
1
5
6
,
5
0
6
$
80
7
,
7
0
2
3.
3
1
6
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
7
7
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
e
r
2
V

S
a
v
e
r
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

1
6
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

O
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
7
9
3
$
38
7
,
1
0
9
$
57
0
,
8
5
0
$
18
3
,
7
4
1
1.
4
7
5
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
7
9
3
$
38
7
,
1
0
9
$
51
8
,
9
5
4
$
13
1
,
8
4
5
1.
3
4
1
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
5
2
6
$
25
6
,
7
5
3
$
51
8
,
9
5
4
$
26
2
,
2
0
2
2.
0
2
1
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
59
2
,
7
1
1
$
51
8
,
9
5
4
$
(7
3
,
7
5
7
)
0.
8
7
6
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
13
0
,
3
5
7
$
40
3
,
4
6
9
$
27
3
,
1
1
2
3.
0
9
5
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
8
0
20
0
7

I
d
a
h
o

C
o
s
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

-

0
2
1
1
0
8

.
x
i
s
30
1
3
.
Attachment 3
2008/2009
PROGRAM BUDGETS
AND SAVINGS.
.
.
.
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T

3
Id
a
h
o

d
e
m
a
n
d

-

s
i
d
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

b
u
d
g
e
t
s

a
n
d

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
20
0
8
$
20
0
8

kW
h

20
0
9
$
20
0
9

kW
h

To
t
a
l

$
To
t
a
l

k
W
h
Ho
m
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s
$
43
5
,
3
9
6
2,
6
4
1
,
0
8
0
$
67
4
,
2
9
5
4,
4
7
9
,
7
7
1
$
1,
1
0
9
,
6
9
2
7,
1
2
0
,
8
5
1
Se
e

y
a

l
a
t
e
r
,

r
e
f
r
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
$
26
7
,
2
8
0
2,
0
9
9
,
4
0
0
$
26
7
,
2
8
0
2,
0
9
9
,
4
0
0
$
53
4
,
5
6
0
4,
1
9
8
,
8
0
0
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
n
z
a
o
$
14
9
,
8
0
8
23
3
,
1
4
8
$
14
9
,
8
0
8
23
3
,
1
4
8
$
29
9
,
6
1
6
46
6
,
2
9
6
Al
l
a
n
c
e
$
32
9
,
9
4
0
5,
2
3
7
,
5
1
2
$
32
9
,
9
4
0
5,
2
3
7
,
5
1
2
$
65
9
,
8
8
0
10
,
4
7
5
,
0
2
3
An
u
a
l

t
o
t
a
s

-

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

I

$
1,
1
8
2
,
4
2
4
10
,
2
1
1
,
1
3
9
$
1,
4
2
1
,
3
2
3
Fi
n
A
s
w
e
r

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
$
12
0
,
1
2
5
38
9
,
7
5
2
$
12
2
,
1
1
9
40
3
,
0
0
2
$
24
2
,
2
4
4
79
2
,
7
5
4
ne
r
g
y

F
i
n
w
e
r
$
43
1
,
0
9
2
1,
5
6
7
,
5
0
0
$
68
8
,
1
0
4
2,
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
$
1,
1
1
9
,
1
9
6
4,
0
7
5
,
5
0
0
Ir
g
a
t
i
o
n

L
o
a
d

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
$
2,
4
2
7
,
7
2
2
15
0
,
0
0
0
*
$
1,
6
3
4
,
0
0
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
*
$
4,
0
6
1
,
7
2
2
NA
Ir
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
e
r
s
$
63
3
,
6
2
3
2,
6
4
7
,
1
4
1
$
63
3
,
6
2
3
2,
6
4
7
,
1
4
1
$
1,
2
6
7
,
2
4
6
5,
2
9
4
,
2
8
1
IA
l
l
a
n
c
e
$
30
,
0
7
4
47
7
,
4
0
5
$
30
,
0
7
4
47
7
,
4
0
5
$
60
,
1
4
9
95
4
,
8
1
0
An
n
u
a

t
o
t
a
s
.

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
$
3,
6
4
2
,
6
3
7
5,
0
8
1
,
7
9
8
$
3,
1
0
7
,
9
2
0
6,
0
3
5
,
5
4
8
$
6,
7
5
0
,
5
5
7
11
,
1
1
7
,
3
4
6
An
n
u
a
l

t
o
t
a
l
s

-

a
l
l
$
4,
8
2
5
,
0
6
1
15
,
2
9
2
,
9
3
7
$
4,
5
2
9
,
2
4
4
18
,
0
8
5
,
3
7
9
$
9,
3
5
4
,
3
0
5
33
,
3
7
8
,
3
1
6
Al
l

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

g
r
o
s
s

a
n
d

a
t

s
i
t
e
*
u
n
i
t
s

a
r
e

k
W

a
n
d

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

k
W
h

t
o
t
a
l
s
Ro
c
k
y

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

P
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

b
u
d
g
e
t
s

b
y

m
a
j
o
r

c
o
s
t

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

d
e
l
i
v
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

l
a
b
o
r
Ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
to
t
a
l
Ho
m
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s
$
59
2
,
6
6
0
$
29
7
,
0
3
2
$
60
,
0
0
0
$
80
,
0
0
0
$
80
,
0
0
0
$
1,
1
0
9
,
6
9
2
Se
e

y
a

l
a
t
e
r
,

r
e
f
r
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
$
11
3
,
7
6
0
$
26
0
,
8
0
0
$
40
,
0
0
0
$
80
,
0
0
0
$
40
,
0
0
0
$
53
4
,
5
6
0
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
n
t
i
o
$
-
$
25
9
,
6
1
6
$
20
,
0
0
0
$
-
$
20
,
0
0
0
$
29
9
,
6
1
6
Fi
n
n
s
w
e
r

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
$
97
,
6
9
9
$
54
,
5
4
5
$
30
,
0
0
0
$
30
,
0
0
0
$
30
,
0
0
0
$
24
2
,
2
4
4
En
e
r
g
y

F
i
n
A
w
e
r
$
39
7
,
7
8
9
$
57
6
,
4
0
8
$
40
,
0
0
0
$
80
,
0
0
0
$
25
,
0
0
0
$
1,
1
1
9
,
1
9
6
Ir
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

L
o
a
d

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
$
-
$
3,
7
6
1
,
7
2
2
$
17
0
,
0
0
0
$
80
,
0
0
0
$
50
,
0
0
0
$
4,
0
6
1
,
7
2
2
Ir
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
e
r
s
$
57
7
,
2
4
6
$
50
0
,
0
0
0
$
60
,
0
0
0
$
50
,
0
0
0
$
80
,
0
0
0
$
1,
2
6
7
,
2
4
6
An
n
u
a
l

t
o
t
a
l
s

-

a
l
l
$
1,
7
7
9
,
1
5
3
$
5,
7
1
0
,
1
2
3
$
42
0
,
0
0
0
$
40
0
,
0
0
0
$
32
5
,
0
0
0
$
8,
6
3
4
,
2
7
6
-
-

-
Ut
i
l
t
y

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
u
t
i
l
t
y

l
a
b
o
r

a
n
d

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s
)
9%
o
-ig.,g ~e?w,g
.
Attachment 4
2008/2009
COST EFFECIVENESS
.
.
.
.
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

4
Id
a
h
o

2
0
0
8
-
2
0
0
9

D
e
m
a
n
d
-
S
i
d
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

C
o
s
t

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
To
t
a
l

P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
5
0
$
6,
4
3
6
,
8
0
8
$
10
,
0
0
4
,
1
5
2
$
3,
5
6
7
,
3
4
5
1.
5
4
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
5
0
$
6,
4
3
6
,
8
0
8
$
9,
0
9
4
,
6
8
4
$
2,
6
5
7
,
8
7
6
1.
4
1
3
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
3
5
1
$
4,
1
1
2
,
4
9
8
$
9,
0
9
4
,
6
8
4
$
4,
9
8
2
,
1
8
6
2.
2
1
1
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
11
,
9
8
9
,
5
2
9
$
9,
0
9
4
,
6
8
4
$
(2
,
8
9
4
,
8
4
5
)
0.
7
5
9
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
2,
3
2
4
,
3
1
0
$
10
,
2
9
3
,
3
5
8
$
7,
9
6
9
,
0
4
8
4.
4
2
9
Li
f
e
C
y
c
1
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
6
9
5
0
0
8
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
o
r
t
o
l
i
o
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
4
7
1
$
2,
5
1
9
,
7
2
7
$
4,
2
2
0
,
4
0
2
$
1,
7
0
0
,
6
7
5
1.
6
7
5
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
4
7
1
$
2,
5
1
9
,
7
2
7
$
3,
8
3
6
,
7
2
9
$
1,
3
1
7
,
0
0
2
1.
5
2
3
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
3
2
7
$
1,
7
4
7
,
4
4
8
$
3,
8
3
6
,
7
2
9
$
2,
0
8
9
,
2
8
2
2.
1
9
6
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
5,
7
4
6
,
9
6
6
$
3,
8
3
6
,
7
2
9
$
(1
,
9
1
0
,
2
3
7
)
0.
6
6
8
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
77
2
,
2
8
0
$
5,
1
6
4
,
5
9
9
$
4,
3
9
2
,
3
2
0
6.
6
8
7
Li
f
e
C
y
c
1
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
5
5
6
4
2
7
No
n
-
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
e
T
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h

C
o
s
t
s
0.
0
6
1
9

$
0.
0
6
1
9

$
0.
0
3
7
3

$
$$
3,
9
1
7
,
0
8
0
3,
9
1
7
,
0
8
0
2,
3
6
5
,
0
5
1
6,
2
4
2
,
5
6
3
1,
5
5
2
,
0
3
0
Be
n
e
f
i
s
$
5
,
7
8
3
,
7
5
0
$
5
,
2
5
7
,
9
5
5
$
5
,
2
5
7
,
9
5
5
$
5
,
2
5
7
,
9
5
5
$
5
,
1
2
8
,
7
5
8
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
$
1
,
8
6
6
,
6
7
0
$
1
,
3
4
0
,
8
7
4
$
2
,
8
9
2
,
9
0
4
$
(
9
8
4
,
6
0
8
)
$
3
,
5
7
6
,
7
2
8
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
1
8
5
9
2
3
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
1.
4
7
7
1.
3
4
2-
i;
~

2
.
2
2
3
rg
G

0
.
8
4
2
-r
¡

~
m
_
n
.Ç

r
n
c -''
"
"
-r
_
.
.
::
t
C
~
'
,
;
'
fr
;
'
:
~
~
:
:
:
(¡
i
¡
ro çs W.,
-
20
0
8
-
2
0
9

Id
a
h
o

C
o
s
t

e
f
c
t
v
e
n
e
s

-

0
2
1
1
0
8
.
x
l
s
1o
f
3
.
.
.
Ho
m
e

E
n
e
r
2
Y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

P
r
o
i
i
r
a
m
Ov
e
r
a
U

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

6
0
%

l
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

S
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
3
2
$
1,
8
6
9
,
3
6
6
$
2,
9
9
8
,
0
6
6
$
1,
1
2
8
,
7
0
0
1.
6
0
4
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
3
2
$
1,
8
6
9
,
3
6
6
$
2,
7
2
5
,
5
1
5
$
85
6
,
1
4
8
1.
4
5
8
Ut
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
2
8
3
$
99
4
,
3
8
9
$
2,
7
2
5
,
5
1
5
$
1,
7
3
1
,
1
2
6
2.
7
4
1
Ra
t
e

I
m
o
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
3,
8
7
4
,
4
7
6
$
2,
7
2
5
,
5
1
5
$
(1
,
1
4
8
,
9
6
2
)
0.
7
0
3
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
87
4
,
9
7
7
$
3,
6
7
5
,
1
7
9
$
2,
8
0
0
,
2
0
2
4.
2
0
0
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
8
3
Se
e

y
a

l
a
t
e
r
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

4
6
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

S
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
7
7
$
37
9
,
8
8
0
$
78
2
,
2
4
2
$
40
2
,
3
6
2
2.
0
5
9
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
7
7
$
37
9
,
8
8
0
$
71

1
,
1
2
9
$
33
1
,
2
4
9
1.
8
7
2
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
4
7
9
$
48
2
,
5
7
8
$
71
1
,
1
2
9
$
22
8
,
5
5
1
1.
4
7
4
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
1,
2
5
2
,
1
0
7
$
71
1
,
1
2
9
$
(5
4
0
,
9
7
8
)
0.
5
6
8
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
(1
0
2
,
6
9
8
)
$
97
8
,
0
1
7
$
1,
0
8
0
,
7
1
5
nl
a
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
1
5
7
5
8
0
Lo
w

I
n
c
o
m
e

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

4
6
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

S
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
4
8
6
$
27
0
,
4
8
1
$
44
0
,
0
9
4
$
16
9
,
6
1
3
1.
6
2
7
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
4
8
6
$
27
0
,
4
8
1
$
40
0
,
0
8
5
$
12
9
,
6
0
5
1.
4
7
9
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
4
8
6
$
27
0
,
4
8
1
$
40
0
,
0
8
5
$
12
9
,
6
0
5
1.
4
7
9
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
62
0
,
3
8
2
$
40
0
,
0
8
5
$
(2
2
0
,
2
9
7
)
0.
6
4
5
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
.
$
51
1
,
4
0
4
$
51
1
,
4
0
4
nl
a
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
5
9
9
20
0
2
0
0
9

I
d
a
h
o

C
o
s
t

e
f
f
c
t
e
n
s
s

-

0
2
1
1
0
8

.
x
I
20
1
3
.
.
.
Fi
n
A
n
s
w
e
r

E
X
D
r
e
s
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

6
5
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
6
0
3
$
45
0
,
8
3
3
$
52
0
,
5
2
0
$
69
,
6
8
6
1.
5
5
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
6
0
3
$
45
0
,
8
3
3
$
47
3
,
2
0
0
$
22
,
3
6
6
1.
0
5
0
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
2
9
3
$
21
8
,
6
2
6
$
47
3
,
2
0
0
$
25
4
,
5
7
4
2.
1
6
4
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
70
0
,
9
9
7
$
47
3
,
2
0
0
$
(2
2
7
,
7
9
8
)
0.
6
7
5
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
23
2
,
2
0
8
$
63
3
,
1
2
8
$
40
0
,
9
2
1
2.
7
2
7
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
9
5
En
e
r
g
y

F
i
n
A
n
s
w
e
r
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

6
5
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
8
6
$
1,
5
5
7
,
9
3
3
$
2,
3
4
6
,
5
0
8
$
78
8
,
5
7
5
1.
5
0
6
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
3
8
6
$
1,
5
5
7
,
9
3
3
$
2,
1
3
3
,
1
8
9
$
57
5
,
2
5
6
1.
3
6
9
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
2
4
9
$
1,
0
0
2
,
4
0
9
$
2,
1
3
3
,
1
8
9
$
1,
1
3
0
,
7
8
0
2.
1
2
8
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
I
M
)
$
2,
6
5
1
,
2
3
6
$
2,
1
3
3
,
1
8
9
$
(5
1
8
,
0
4
7
)
0.
8
0
5
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
55
5
,
5
2
5
$
2,
2
2
5
,
6
8
9
$
1,
6
7
0
,
1
6
4
4.
0
0
6
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
9
7
8
2
2
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
e
r
i
n

S
a
v
e
r
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
AC
:

I
R
P

1
6
%

L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

D
e
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

$
/
k
W
h
Co
s
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
s
Ne
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

+

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
8
7
$
1,
9
0
8
.
3
1
4
$
2,
9
1
6
,
7
2
3
$
1,
0
0
8
,
4
0
9
1.
2
8
To
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
T
R
C
)

n
o

A
d
d
e
r
0.
0
5
8
7
$
1,
9
0
8
,
3
1
4
$
2,
6
5
1
,
5
6
6
$
74
3
,
2
5
2
1.
8
9
Ut
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

T
e
s
t

(
U
C
T
)
0.
0
3
5
2
$
1,
1
4
4
,
0
1
6
$
2,
6
5
1
,
5
6
6
$
1,
5
0
7
,
5
5
0
2.
3
1
8
Ra
t
e

I
m
p
a
c
t

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
R
M
)
$
2,
8
9
0
,
3
3
0
$
2,
6
5
1
,
5
6
6
$
(2
3
8
,
7
6
3
)
0.
9
1
7
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
P
C
T
)
$
76
4
,
2
9
8
$
2,
2
6
9
,
9
4
1
$
1,
5
0
5
,
6
4
3
2.
9
7
0
Li
f
e
C
y
c
l
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
h
)
$
0
.
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
3
5
20
0
8
-
2
0
0
9

I
d
a
h
o

C
o
s

e
f
c
t
i
v
e
n
s
s

-

0
2
1
1
0
8

.
x
i
s
30
f
3
~
Attachment 6
MARKT CHARACTERIZATION
AND EVALUATION PLAN,
FOR ENERGY FINANSWER
.
.
.1" #',... ~t j".. ~-~l¡ ;?;.~". I
"'r¡f1a FE.13' i 4'LUtlu .. d 10:34
Submitted To:
PACIFICO P
A MIDAIC ENERGY HOlDNGS COMPANY
.
2006 Energy FinAnswerI
Market Characterization and
Program Enhancements
Idaho Service Territory
Submitted By:
Ít1Nexanr
.January 2, 2007
. Contents
Section Page
CONTENTS I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................111
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 APPROACH TO WORK .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 REpORT ORGANIZATION..................................................................... .....................................................1-3
SECTION 2 INCENTIVE ALIGNMENT ....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 2-4
SECTION 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION.............................................................................. 3-1
.
3.1 INRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 BARRIERS................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.3 BEST PRACTICE APPROACHES ................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.4 SIMILAR NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAS ............................................................ 3-6
3.5 PROGRA DESIGN............................................................................... ....................................................3-7
3.6 PROGRA RECRUITMENT ........................................................................................................................3-9
3.7 NEW CONSTRUCTIONIMOR RENOVATION DESIGN ASSISTANCE PATHAYS .....................................3-13
3.8 INCENTVES ........................................................................................................................................... 3-20
3.9 PROGRA IMPACT AN SAVINGS GoALS .............................................................................................. 3-25
3.10 PROGRAM INTGRATION ....................................................................................................................... 3-26
3.11 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................................3-27
SECTION 4 REFERENCES......................................................................................................J................... 4-1
APPENDIX A INCENTIVE ALIGNMENT DATA
APPENDIX B ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
APPENDIX C DESIGN ASSISTANCE COST INFORMTION
APPENDIX D 2004 MART ASSESSMENT
.
t1Nenr 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Nexant has conducted an analysis of opportities to increase the number of comprehensive
energy effciency projects undertaken by commercial and industral end-use customers within
PacifiCorp's Idaho service terrtory though PacifiCorp's Energy FinAswer progrm. The
findings presented are based upon the following sources:
1. Energy FinAnswer Market Assessment for PacifCorp 's Idaho Service Territory prepared
by Nexant on September 17, 2004 (revised May 25 2005). A copy of this report is
attched in Appendix D;
2. Results of roundtables conducted with key design community players in PacifiCorp's
Utah service territory;
3. A review of other utilty programs and best practices, and;
4. Nexants experience in implementing similar DSM programs around the countr.
As a result of this work, Nexant has identified several recommendations, including:
· The Energy FinAswer program can yield energy and demand savings if implemented in
the Idaho service terrtory.
· The incentive levels for the proposed Energy FinAswer program ($0. 12/annual kWh
plus $50 per average first year peak demand reduction) are appropriate when compared to
other western utility programs.
· The Idaho market has a small but growing demand-side management infrastrctue due
largely to the FinAswer Express program which started in 2006, efficiency programs
offered by Idaho Power and Avista Utilities, as well as outreach from the Northwest
Energy Effciency Allance.
· Within the Idaho market, the vast majority of the newly constrcted commercial
buildings are small (less than 20,000 square feet) and the potential for comprehensive
analysis is limited. As such, many of these projects wil be better served though the
FinAswer Express program. However, when a larger project is encountered, the design
assistace program can be available to assist the design teamowner with an integrated
design approach. Based upon the anticipated savings from each project, cost-control
components wil need to be put into place to ensure program cost-effectiveness. If
PacifiCorp's pool of qualified energy consultants are from out of town, Nexant suggests
implementing web-conferences for the three design assistance meetings.
Table i summarzes the adjusted estimated incremental incentives, customer costs, and savings
impacts (at meter) associated with implementing the Energy FinAswer program. The original
estimates are contained in the Market Characterization Report which is provided in Appendix D.
Table ii provides the incremental impacts of the new constrction process in Idaho. Table iii
provides a totalized sumar of the Energy FinAnswer Program.
øNean 2006 Energy FinAnswer0 Proram Enhancements iii
.Executive Summary
Table i. Estimated FinAnswer Program Penormance in 10 (without New Construction)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Administration 1 $95,102 $285,307 $356,634 $356,634 $356,634 $1,450,311
Incentives $51,613 $154,839 $193,549 $193,549 $193,549 $787,100
Total Utilty Costs $146,715 $440,146 $550,183 $550,183 $550,183 $2,237,411
Gross Participant Costs $133,598 $400,794 $500,993 $500,993 $500,993 $2,037,372
Table ii. Estimated Cost and Savings Incremental Impacts of the New Construction Process
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5*Total
Design, Admin, Consulting,$23,000 $33,035 $36,158 $38,871 $46,372 $177,436.Evaluation 2
Marketing $2,500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $6,500
Building Owner Incentives $4,000 $12,560 $35,526 $53,050 $53.050 $158,185
Total Utilty Costs $29,500 $46,595 $72,683 $92,921 $100,422 $342,122
Participant Costs $12,500 $34,821 $88,881 $127,781 $127,782 $391,765
Incremental Area
Started SF
.
*It is assumed that the program wil continue beyond five year, rather than sunset. Therefore projects staed in
Year 5 wil be completed in Year 6.
i Administrtive costs are inclusive of trining, administrtive support, marketing, EEM inspections, ongoing
evaluation, modeling/designcontract, and progrm management.
2 Assumes a $15,000 evaluation cost spread between years 2 and 4.
iv f;Nenr2006 Energy FinAnswe¡4 Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Table iii. Estimated Total Cost and Savings of the Energy FinAnswer Program
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Administration $120,602 $319,343 $393,792 $396,505 $404,006 $1,634,248
Incentives $55,613 $167,399 $229,075 $246,599 $246,599 $945,285
Total Utilty Costs $176,215 $486,741 $622,866 $643,104 $650,605 $2,579,533
Gross Participant Costs $146,098 $435,616 $589,874 $628,774 $628,775 $2,429,137
tJNenr 2006 Energy FinAnsw~ Proram Enhancements v
.Section 1 Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW
In 2004, Nexant conducted a market assessment of implementing the Energy FinAswer
Progrm in Idaho. The report, which is included in Appendix D, concluded that cost effective
energy efficiency can be achieved in Idaho. In June of 2006, PacifiCorp retained Nexant, Inc.
(Nexant) to provide assistance with designing the next phase of program improvements for the
FinAswer() Express and Energy FinAswer() energy effciency programs in all of their service
terrtories. The objective of these improvements is to increase cost-effective energy and demand
savings and improve new constrction paricipation levels. Consistency across the service
territories, except where justified, is also a consideration to simplify implementation and reduce
administrative costs. PacifiCorp curently offers FinAswer Express in their Idaho, Utah and
Washington service territories, and the Energy FinAswer incentive program is curently
available in Utah and Washington.
This report presents the results of the analysis conducted for the Idaho service territory.
Specifically, this effort evaluated the following key components:
· Energy FinAnswer Savings Potential: Assess the savings potential and cost impacts of
implementing the Energy FinAnswer program in Idaho. This body of work is included in this
. report in Appendix D.
· Energy FinAnswer Incentive Alignment: Confirm the appropriateness and update as
necessar incentive levels for the Energy FinAswer Program
· Energy FinAnswer New Construction Evaluation: Evaluate the potential savings
associated with implementing a dedicated design assistance process for new constrction and
major renovation projects.
1.2 APPROACH TO WORK
Analysis activities utilzed a systematic approach to evaluate each task. The approach focused on
using existing data resources with limited primary data collection efforts. Each task utilized
different sources of data. However brief descriptions of the key activities are sumarized below.
· Utity Project Review. Nexant conducted a review of savings, costs, and incentives
though the Energy FinAswer program for inactive and new constrction projects.
.
· Utility DSM Program Review. Nexant conducted a review of existing energy efficiency
programs to identify incentive strctues for new constrction and custom measures
investigated as part of this work. These efforts focused on program offerings from major
utilities and energy effciency organizations with service terrtories close to PacifiCorp
(summarized in Table 1-1). Where additional programs were known to exist or identified
t1Neanr 206 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements 1-1
Introuction.
though other review activi
noted in Section 4 of this re
T
Entity
Avista ww.avistauti
ETO ww.energytr
Idaho Power ww.idahopo
PG&E http://ww.sa
PSE ww.pse.com
Xcel Energy ww.xcelene
.Best Practices Review. Ne
barers and best practice a
Entity.Department of
Northwest Energy Effciency
Best Practices Benchmar
Energy Effciency Pr
California Public Utilties Com
United States Green Building
California Energy Commission
.Code Review. To assess th
constrction design assista
code requirements. Review
code requirements as well
2003 International Energy
residential facilities. At the
houses of the Legislatue, a
adopts the 2006 IECC, wit
.Design Community Identi
design community to paric
City. The goal of the round
constrction design assist.wide-ranging and applicabl
project. As such, Nexant in
1-2
Section 1
ties, they were included in the analysis. These resources are
port.
able 1.1. Energy Efficiency Programs
Energy Effciency Web Site
lities.com/saving/comJncentives.asp
ust.orgfbusiness/index.html
wer.com/energycenter/energyeffciencylY ourBusiness/default. htm
vingsbydesign.com/overview.htm
/solutions/ForBusiness_ EffciencyPrograms.aspx
rgy.com/XLWEB/CDAlO,3080, 1-1-3_4530_8437 -7323-2_366_583-0,00.html
xant conducted a review of existing studies identifying
pproaches for new constrction incentive programs.
Table 1.2. Resources
Location of Resource
Energy http://ww.eere.energy.gov
Allance http://ww.betterbricks.coml
king for http://ww.eebestpractices.com/
ograms
mission http://ww.energydesignresources.coml
Council https:/Iww.usgbc.orgf
(PIER) http://ww.energy.ca.gov/pier/buildingslreports.html
e appropriateness of curent baseline assumptions for the new
nce program, analysis efforts included a review of applicable
effort focused primarily on state codes, and included curent
as investigation into planned futue code updates. In Idaho, the
Conservation Code (2003 IECC) is the curent code for non-
time of this wrting, House Bil #137 had been passed by both
nd is awaiting the Governor's signatue. House Bil #137
h an effective date of Januar 1, 2008.
fication and Input. Nexant contacted members of the Utah
ipate in one of thee roundtable meetings held in Salt Lake
tables was to receive input on barrers and solutions for new
ance. The comments and topics covered in the roundtable were
e to the design community regardless of the location of the
corporated these comments into this report.
2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhanements t-1Nfnr
.
.
.
Section 1 Introduction
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Results from the analysis approach outlined above are presented in the balance of this report.
Specifically:
· Section 2 contains the results of the incentive alignment activities.
· Section 3 presents best practices and progrm guidelines for a potential non-residential,
large new constrction design assistance program.
· Section 4 includes a listing of references used to complete this evaluation.
· Appendices contain additional information and findings.
l.ll 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proam Enhancements 1-3
.
.
.
Section 2 Incentive Alignment
Utilizing available project data from PacifiCorp, Nexant evaluated incentive levels as a function
of energy savings~ incremental cost, and simple payback for projects that were not implemented
within a year from delivery of the Energy Analysis Report. Nexant then compared the incentive
levels from the Energy FinAnswer program to the incentive strctues of other western states'
utility progrms.
The programs from which comparisons were drawn were selected because of their similarity to
the Energy FinAswer program. Each utility offers programs to large commercial and industral
customers with customized projects. Nexant sureyed several non-residential comprehensive
programs as shown in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2.1. Energy Efficiency Programs
Entity Program Incentive Structure
Depending on Payback, incentive ranges from $0.04 to
Avista Site Specific Energy Effciency Incentives $0.14/kWh, but no more than 50% of the incremental
cost.
Building Effciency, Custom Incentives $0.12/kWh, up to 25% of the incremental cost.
Energy Trust Maximum incentive level is $100,000.
of Oregon Production Effciency, Custom Incentives $0.121kWh, up to 50% of the incremental cost.
Maximum incentive level is $250,000.
Idaho Power Industnal Effciency Incentive Program $0.121kWh, up to 50% of the incremental cost.
Maximum incentive level is $100,000.
Pacific Gas &Air Conditioning & Refrigeration: $0.14/kWh
Electric Customized Energy Effciency Motors & Other Equipment: $O.OB/kWh
(PG&E)Up to 50% of the capital cost of the project. Maximum
incentive level is $350,000.
Puget Sound Custom Grants Customized calculation between 50% and 70% of the
Energy (PSE)installed project cost.
Xcel Energy Custom Effciency $200/Peak kW
Nevada Sure Bet $100/Peak kW + $0.03/kWhPower
PacifiCorp Energy FinAnswer $0.12/kWh + $50/kW up to 50% of the incremental cost.
Nexant was provided with 43 projects which received a fun energy analysis report, but were not
implemented. The projects were analyzed and summarized in Table 2-2 below.
I.Ne 200 Energy FinAswe~ Program Enhancements 2-1
.
.
.
Incentive Alignment Sectio 2
Table 2-2. Inactive Energy FinAnswer Project Summary (43 Total)
Total Annual Total Average
#of Energy Monthly
Projects Customer Savings Demand
Stae Evaluated Incremental Cost (kWh)Savings (kW)
UT 20 $4,628,136 17,523,444 1,541
WA 23 $2,896,399 11,345,671 847
Total 43 $7,524,535 28,869,115 2,388
For each project, Nexant calculated the incentive for each project using the incentive strctues
for similar utility programs. To compare the incentive levels from FinAnswer to other utility
programs equally, Nexant did not enact any per project caps on any of the incentives for other
utilities. For example, the ETO caps per-project incentives for custom projects at $100,000.
Additionally, Nexant did not include any associated with federal, state, or local tax incentives.
As shown in Table 2-3, incentives range between $0.11 and $0.03 with PacifiCorp residing in
the middle at $0.09. As a fuction of incremental cost, PacifiCorp provides approximately 34%
of the cost; which, is well within the range of other utilty programs.
Table 2-3. Incentive Summary for Similar Western Utilty Programs
InCéntive per
Incentive per Customer-
Entity Incentive kWh-Saved Incremental Cost
PacifiCorp $2,574,683 $0.09 34%
Avista (Idaho)$2,441,730 $0.08 32%
Avista (Washington)$2,441,730 $0.08 32%
ETG $2,712,239 $0.09 36%
Idaho Power $2,712,239 $0.09 36%
PG&E $3,175,603 $0.11 42%
Xcel Energy $955,320 $0.03 13%
Nevada Power $1,343,733 $0.05 18%
*Puget Sound Energy was excluded due uncertainty in the level of incentives available through the grant program.
To captue the impact of the utilty incentives on project economics, Nexant also evaluated the
simple payback of the projects after accounting for the incentive payment. Table 2-4 sumarizes
the utilty rate strctues of the utilities that serve customers participating in the selected
programs.
2-2 2006 Energ FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements tlNt
.
.
.
Secion2 Incentive Alignment
Table 2.4. Utilty Rates for Similar Western Utilties
Blended Utilty
Rate Energy Rate Demand Rate Utilty Rate Program
Entity State Schedule ($/kWh)($/kW/month)($/kWh)*Evaluated
UT 8 $0.030 $12.37 $0.06 PacifiCorp
WA 48 $0.032 $5.71 $0.04 PacifCorp
PacifiCorp OR 48 $0.033 $4.15 $0.04 ETO
CA A-36 $0.054 $5.30 $0.06 -
10 6 $0.029 $9.74 $0.05 -
10 21 $0.042 $3.00 $0.05 Avista (Idaho)
Avista AvistaWA21$0.053 $3.00 $0.06 (Washington)
Idaho Power 10 9 $0.030 $4.21 $0.04 Idaho Power
PG&E CA E-20 $0.093 $16.06 $0.13 PG&E
Xcel Energy CO SG $0.032 $13.44 $0.06 Xcel Energy
Nevada Power NV GS-3 $0.088 $10.32 $0.11 Nevada
Power
...Utillty rates were blended assuming a 67% load factor.
As shown in Table 2-5, the simple payback of projects after receiving incentives ranges from l.4
to 5.0 years. PacifiCorp is in line with these programs at 4.2 years. Although the incentives
provide significant impetus for the customer to install a particular measure, the customer's
energy cost savings also plays a key role.
Table 2.5. Economic Summary for Similar Western Utilty Programs
Simple Simple
Payback Payback
Customer before after
Incremental Energy Cost incentive incentive
Entity Customer Cost Incentive Savings (Years)(Years)
PacifiCorp $7,524,535 $2,574,683 $1,176,127 6.4 4.2
Avista (Idaho)$7,524,535 $2,441,730 $1,307,142 5.8 3.9
Avista (Washington)$7,524,535 $2,441,730 $1,622,682 4.6 3.1
ETO $7,524,535 $2,712,239 $1,071,647 7.0 4.5
Idaho Power $7,524,535 $2,712,239 $ 988,126 7.6 4.9
PG&E $7,524,535 $3,175,603 $3,147,064 2.4 1.4
Xcel Energy $7,524,535 $955,320 $1,312,750 5.7 5.0
Nevada Power $7,524,535 $1,343,733 $2,824,616 2.7 2.2
t1NenT 2.3200 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements
.
.
.
Incentive Alignment Secton 2
2.1 CONCLUSION
Based upon the results provided above, the Energy FinAswer program's incentive strctue is
squarely in the middle of other western utility programs. Based upon the scope of this market
characterization report, Nexant was unable to determine the reasons for the projects' inactivity.
However, energy and demand rates playa significant role in the attractiveness of the project
economics. Based upon this review, the incentive levels are in line with what other western
utilities are paying. As such, Nexant recommends the Energy FinAswer incentive strctue as it
exists in Utah and Washington.
2-4 .,,,2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Incorporating energy effciency into new constrction is a pro-active, cost-effective way of
achieving energy efficiency savings that can be augmented by other DSM offerings such as
commissioning, equipment retrofits, and recommissioning during subsequent phases of a
facility's lifetime. Addressing the energy pedormance of new facilties in the early design stages
provides the design team the opportity to impact savings on a whole building level by
maximizing the synergistic relationships of the building systems.
The market potential of energy design assistance is developing due to customers' increasing
awareness ofLEED and ENERGYSTAR(j certifications, and new federal tax incentives
available for energy efficient facilities. PacifiCorp has continually improved their presence in
the new constrction market place. Curently, new constrction projects are eligible to
participate in FinAswer Express. In search of fuher improvements to cost-effectively
stimulate a growing number of new constrction projects, Nexant investigated a streamlined
methodology for supportng design assistance services though PacifiCorp' s Energy
FinAswer Program.
3.2 BARRIERS.To effectively implement a new constrction design assistance program, it is imperative that
barriers be understood and that proactive solutions are developed and incorporated into the
program design. To characterize the barers and solutions associated with new constrction
energy design assistance, Nexant evaluated best practice meta-studies, reviewed similar utility
programs, and conducted roundtables with members of the Utah design community. Obstacles to
incorporating energy effciency enhancements into new constrction design are categorized into
four key areas:
1. Conflcting roles impede integrated design.
2. Limited awareness of the benefits and availability of design assistance resources.
3. Technical resources, if provided, are employed too late in the design process.
4. Disincentives for design teams to participate in integrated design.
A description of each obstacle is provided below.
1. Conflicting roles impede integrated design.
Non-residential real estate ownership can be divided broadly into three groups;
1. Public buildings owned by governental entities;
. 2. Owner occupied buildings; and,
t'Nenr 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements 3-1
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Section 3
3. Speculative constrction built by developers and rented to tenants.
A study by the California Board for Energy Effciency (Non-Residential Baseline Study, RLW
Analytics, Sonoma, CA, July 1999) found that public buildings and owner occupied buildings are
more likely to incorporate energy efficiency measures in their constrction than buildings built
"on spec". The fact that the owners of these buildings are also paying the utility bils provides
economic incentive for the owners to consider the life cycle cost rather than just initial capital
costs. In the speculative market, the drving force is to produce an acceptable building for the
lowest cost per squae foot, and, since the tenant rather than the developer is responsible for
energy costs, the emphasis is on lowering the first cost of building systems rather than lowering
their life cycle costs.
Each of the key participants shown in Table 3-1 has a specific role in the process of designing
and constrcting new buildings. While each participant is important in the ultimate completion
of the project, they each have their own drvers, which often times are at odds with producing a
high effciency building.
Table 3-1. Key Players in New Construction
Player Function Driver
.Originate project .Return on investment
.Secure financing .Aesthetics
Owners .Approve building details .Comfort
.Approve budgets .Utilty
.Lead design team .Design fees.Develop building conceptArchitects .Recognition.Project siting .Addition to portolio.Interface with owner
.Detailed technical design .Design Fees
Engineers .Specify and design major energy consuming .Mitigation of risk
systems ..Code compliance
.Physical construction of building .BudgetBuilders.Supervision of subcontractors .Schedule
Equipment .Supply key building systems .Equipment salesManufacturers.May provide design assistance
The relationships between these players are sometimes complex. For example, engineers may
rely on equipment manufactuers as a technical resource; in some cases, the manufactuers
actually perform design work for the engineers. Some builders operate as Designiuild firms
with in-house architects and engineers, and offer tuey building to owners. This complex
relationship, coupled with the diversity of drvers, can often lead to conflct among the players
when the building envelope and systems designs are being developed. The architect's need to
3-2 t1Ne2006 Energy FinAnswer0 Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluatio
design a strking, comfortable building often conflcts with the developer's need for minimal first
cost and the engineer's possible desire to incorporate energy effciency into the building's
systems.
Integrted design is defined as "the process of design in which multiple disciplines and
seemingly unelated aspects of design are integrated in a maner that permits synergistic benefits
to be realized."3 Through interactions between various designers, trade-offs and solutions can be
found at a lower cost than a conventional process. A strctued energy design assistace
approach that encourages interdisciplinar discussions and trade-offs can mitigate the perceived
and real differences in motivations.
2. Limited awareness of the benefits and availabilty of design assistance resources.
A common misconception is that high efficiency designs are uneconomicaL. However, numerous
studies have shown that high performance buildings can cost equal to or less than a conventional
building on a lifecycle cost basis. A statistic provided by the Departent of Energy4 states that
high pedormance buildings can save half the energy cost of comparable buildings designed
though conventional means. Benefits of high performance buildings include:
· Energy savings evaluated over a building's lifecycle can provide attactive paybacks and
retus on investments.
· High performance buildings can yield more comfortable and productive work spaces for
employees.
· Owners and developers can leverage the effciency gains at reduced lease rates.
· Integration between design teams can provide systems with better interoperabilty and
fuction.
However, even with the benefits of better buildings, some owners and design teams lack
awareness of resources to assist and direct design teams towards economical strategies. Based
upon feedback from the roundtables, fuding for energy engineering and modeling services is a
large barrer. Having accesS-to utility-sponsored analysis was considered very attactive. Nexant
recommends targeted marketing to designers and engineers to increase awareness of utility-
fuded energy engineering services.
3. Technical resources, if provided, are employed too late in the design process.
The integrated design process described above provides the highest value early in the process
and declines rapidly as the design progresses. Many decisions that affect the performance of high
3 Quotation from htt://ww.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/designintegratedbuilding!
4 htt://ww.eere.energy .gov/buildings/info/designwholebuilding!costanalysis.html
t1Neønr 2006 Energy FinAnswer0 Program Enhancements 3-3
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Section 3
efficiency technologies are impacted during programming and schematic design. Daylighting,
for example, is affected by choices made about project siting, glazing characteristics, shading,
and indoor space utilization. Traditionally, design teams lack the initiative or resources to
evaluate the benefits of effcient strategies early enough in the process to be incorporated cost-
effectively in the design.
con I1gpro I em arly
AS A PROJECT PRO(;RESSES,
THE COST Of fINÐcIlG ANÐc 1".
FmNGi PROBLEMS INCREASES I
DRAMATICALLY. PUJS, POTENTIAL I
BENE:fITS ARE fORfEITED. THE
BEST TIME TO fIX PROBLEMS IS
EARLY ON, WHEN COSTS ARE LOW
fiND THE POTENTIAL POSITIVE
IMPACT Of THE CllflN(;E IS HIGIl.
Figure 3.1. Design and Opportunities Timeline5
In some cases, designers do not think about the utility DSM programs until they have decided on
an efficient design already. Therefore the utility is forced to document the effcient ~trategies
rather than create them early in the process. In other situations, owners are briefed about
incentives by a vendor during the bidding process. As such, the project is already designed and
opportities for large changes are limited.
4. Disincentives for design teams to participate in integrated design.
Design teams have several disincentives for participating in integrated design approaches. These
include:
· Design teams may be unfamiliar and hesitant to work with new technologies.
· Design budgets traditionally do not include additional monies to evaluate non-tyical
measures.
· Design time lines are fairly streamlined and do not accommodate time for analysis of effcient
measures.
5 Source: Better Bncks- htt://ww.betterbncks.com/iveFiles/12/434/AdGraphsl.doc
3-4 tJ N."2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
· Owners may not be involved in discussions about alternative systems until later in the design
process.
· Incentives through "custom" utilty DSM offerings are sometimes unclear and payable only
to owners. As such, there is little incentive for designers to extend themselves for uncertain
retus.
To reduce the pushback from design teams, two key solutions include:
· Supply independent and third-part fuded technical resources to analyze effcient
technologies.
· Provide incentives to design teams for their participation in integrated design helps allay
concerns of extra effort that the design assistance process may entaiL. Additionally,
incentives to design team members provide motivation to pursue high effciency building
technologies.
3.3 BEST PRACTICE APPROACHES
Based upon feedback from the roundtables and sureys of other exemplary design assistance
programs, several best practice approaches are recommended to overcome the barrers. These
key components are described below:
· Develop paths for comprehensive and system-based measures - Offer options to
customers to pursue a comprehensive design approach where applicable, and a systems-
based approach for buildings that are either too far along in the design process or for less
complex buildings.
· Offer financial incentives to owners and design teams - Provide incentives to design
professionals to compensate them for their efforts in investigating high effciency
technologies. Incentives provided to owners help to defray first costs associated with high
effciency equipment.
· Foster integrated design - Provide a foru that encourages integrated design and require
paricipation from the entire design team.
· Assemble independent and qualified design assistance providers - To maintain program
integrity and streamlined procedures, acquire highly skiled design assistance providers and
provide training to ensure consistent results across the program.
· Designate project champions - Successful projects require a champion from within the
design team as well as a design assistance faciltator that directs the concept.
t7NeQnT 200 Energy FinAnswer' Proram Enhancements 3-5
.
.
.
New Constrution Evaluation Section 3
· Clearly define guidelines for determining energy savings and incentives - Develop clear
and transparent guidelines for calculating savings and incentives to instil buy-in from
designers and owners.
· Develop streamlined program procedures and delineate responsibilties for all
stakeholders - The design assistance program should be focused on providing results
though a timely and consistent process. Communicate each part's responsibilities early in
the process to mitigate confusion later on.
· Focus marketing on tangible benefits rather than energy efficiency - Communicate in
the language of the stakeholder. For example, outreach to developers and owners should be
specific to financial benefits, production thoughput, or employee productivity; whereas
engineers and architects may be more interested in aesthetics or fuctionality of individual
systems.
3.4 SIMILAR NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The best practices described above are represented in the vast majority of the programs offered
across the nation. Nearly every large utility has developed an energy effciency progrm offering
for new constrction projects. While program designs var, most utilities offer both systems
based and custom approaches to new constrction projects. Table 3-2 ilustrates the traits of
programs that are complementary of the proposed new constrction design presented herein.
Table 3.2. Energy Effciency Programs
Building Owner Design Team
Incentives Support
Entity Program (J(J ~~.~~in (JQ.en .~()Æ Ol.¡:0 Ol c in c()'0 C 1:ai ;:'-in '0 - '0(J :§(J ai cl!x ()':;c :ia.¡¡ei .E (!c: u.
Avista LEED Certification .J .J
BC Hydro High Performance .J .J .J .JBuilding Program
California Savings by Design .J .J .JStatewide
ETG New Building Effciency .J .J .J .J
Idaho Power Building Effciency for .JCommercial Construction
National Grid Design2000plus .J .J .J .J .J
Northeast Utilties Energy Conscious .J .J .J .J .JBlueprint
NSTAR Construction Solutions .J .J .J .J
PSE New Construction Grants .J .J
Xcel Energy Energy Design .J .J .J .JAssistance
3.6 t1..tl2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Progm Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Constructon Evaluation
3.4.1 Building Owner Incentives
Each program sureyed provided financial support for building owners investing in better-than-
code designs. Nexant categorized them into three categories as shown below:
.Prescriptive approaches include fixed incentive offers for prescribed qualifying equipment.
This method is similar to the FinAswer Express offering which requires customers to
purchase and install equipment meeting minimum effciency requirements.
.Fixed offer incentives are common across several of the programs. For example, the Energy
Trust of Oregon pays ten cents per annual kWh saved over a code level baseline. Other
utilities have begu to leverage the US Green Building Council's LEED program as a
qualifying threshold. Idaho Power, for example, pays a fixed $ i .25 per conditioned square
foot for LEED certified projects meeting at least 4 LEED points for optimized energy
performance.
.Sliding Scale incentive strctues are used by some utilities to encourage owners to optimize
their building designs. Xcel Energy and California's statewide Savings by Design Offering
provides sliding incentive scales that provide more financial benefit per unit of energy saved
as the design is progressively improved above code requirements.
3.4.2 Design Team Support
As described in the barers section of this report, design teams may be disinclined to parcipate
in integrated design approaches. Utilties have developed various mechanisms to overcome this
barer as follows:
.Incentives provided to design team members have been shown to encourage participation.
The incentives are a means of reimbursing the designers for their participation in the design
charettes. Xcel Energy provides incentives based upon the size of the building after their
participation in the meetings. The Savings by Design program provides a sliding scale where
the design team must exceed code by 15% in order to receive incentives. Northeast Utilities
provides incentives as a "finder's fee" and then again after the building has been constrcted.
.Technical Guidance is provided by most utilities to assist design teams through the process.
Several utilities provide in-house assistance while others provide assistance though
organizations (e.g. Better Bricks, Lighting Design Lab) and/or private consultants.
.Analysis Funding is provided to design teams by several utilties. Examples range from
cost-sharing with customers to tuey energy analysis by utility-retained consultants.
3.5 PROGRAM DESIGN
As described under best practices, new constrction projects can be channeled through a
comprehensive approach or a systems-based approach. Projects that have simple systems or
t1llft 200 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements 3-7
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Section 3
common measure tyes should proceed through prescriptive paths under FinAswer Express.
Larger or more complex projects where the customers meet the qualification requirements of the
design assistance process should be fueled to the comprehensive track. All other projects
should remain under the current Energy FinAswer program strctue as this program is effcient
at analyzing individual systems.
Efforts should be made to place the design assistance process under the Energy FinAswer
umbrella so to provide a simple energy effciency message to the customer. Details specific to
integration are provided in Section 3.10 and the proposed decision flowchart is presented below.
New Constrction/ajor
Renovation Project
Yes
No FinAswer Express
Yes No
Energy FinAswer
Design Assistace
Process
Energy FinAswer
Standad Path
Figure 3.2. New Construction/Renovation Decision Flowchart
The following section contains Nexants recommendations specific to developing a design
assistance process with the objective of encouraging greater design team cooperation and
integrated building system analysis for qualifying projects. Through this process, PacifiCorp can
obtain verifiable and persistent electrc energy savings through the integration of energy
effciency strategies into the building design. PacifiCorp would reward participation in the
program by providing design assistance services, reimbursement for design team meetings, and
monetary incentives to the building owner based on actual savings achieved.
3.5.1 Technical Guidelines
Idaho has adopted the International Energy Conservation CodeCI (IECC). For facilities which are
not subject to IECC, standard industr practice is recommended as the baseline.
3.8 tJJV2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
As of this writing, Idaho curently subscribes to the 2003 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2001 by
reference. However, it is proposed that IECC 2006 version (and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by
reference) wil be effective in the next year. For the puroses of this report, it is assumed that the
new code change wil be in effect and the appropriate baseline for the design assistance program
is IECC 2006.
Based upon similar progras, curent practice in Energy FinAswer, and responses from the
roundtable, Nexant recommends that customers achieve a minimum energy performance
theshold in order to qualify for incentives. As such, the recommended energy performance
theshold is 10% beyond the effective state energy code. Buildings that exceed beyond this
baseline level wil be eligible to receive incentives. Buildings that fail to meet this requirement
can be directed to FinAswer Express to receive prescriptive or custom incentives. This concept
is fuher ilustrated in the figure below.
Il
i
i
ASHRAE Std 90 1-200-Appendix G
Program Baseline Energy Performanc
ThresholdIECC 2006 + 10%
Performance Threshold
Potential savings
eligible for
incentives
Desian Assistance
Partcipating Building
Figure 3-3. Ilustration of program baseline and savings eligibilty
A baseline model wil be created in accordance with the requirements set fort in ASHRAE
90.1-2004 Informative Appendix G and the minimum equipment effciency requirements from
IECC. Appendix G sets forth a methodology of rating the energy efficiency of building designs
that exceed the requirements of the standard.
3.6 PROGRAM RECRUITMENT
New commercial and industral buildings represent a very competitive market relative to
attacting tenants. Recent trends have brought attention to "green" architectue and "sustainable
design" as a way to distinguish one building from another in terms of product differentiation.
tlNe 200 Energy FinAnswer& Proram Enhancements 3-9
.
.
.
New Construcuon Evaluation Section 3
The rise of the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED rating system is just one example of this
movement. The resulting design trends lend themselves to an integrated design assistance
template by providing support to AlE design teams and building owners towards achieving these
goals. Marketing recommendations for the program wil seek to exploit this market behavior and
increase the energy effciency of new buildings within PacifiCorp' s Idaho service terrtory.
A comprehensive design assistance approach sends a specific marketing message to corporate
account managers, consultants, design teams, and customers that energy efficiency can be
economical and viable. In our experience, design teams that participate in the process find the
process valuable and continue to bring new projects to the program. Additionally, the
participants who were involved in the roundtables expressed interest in engaging the design
assistance process after kickoff.
3.6.1 Program Promotion
Overall, the proposed program is fuctional and cost-effective over a variety of building tyes
and sizes, which wil allow it to be successful in a variety of market conditions. Targeting the
varous stakeholders in the design and development community wil require expanding curent
Energy FinAswer marketing channels. Based upon feedback from the roundtable meetings,
additional efforts could be made by PacifiCorp to expand the awareness of the design assistance
offerings. To achieve increased awareness, five key promotional messages are recommended:
1. Promote the program to PacifCorp customers. Promotions to customers help "war" futue
prospects and reminds past participants of the benefits of previous projects.
2. Develop a program faciltator. Although new constrction marketing efforts wil continue
though existing Energy FinAswer outreach chanels, Nexant recommends the
establishment of an on-the-ground design assistance point of contact who is responsible for
maintaining contact with Al firms and tracking down project leads. This point-person can
also act as the facilitator with the design teams durng the design assistance process as well
as provide consistency of the process between energy engineering consultants.
3. Expand marketing to the architectural, engineering, and construction community.
Promotion to design/constrction teams also leverages previous participation as well as
providing new avenues for value-added services to their clients. Though local firms do the
majority of work, national firms doing work in specific building tyes should also be
targeted with promotional efforts. Nexant recommends expanding outreach to local
organizations such as AlA, USGBC, ASHRAE, BOMA, and other trade organizations to
increase the program's visibility.
4. Recognize successful participation. A recommendation from the roundtable was to publicly
recognze program participation. Although PacifiCorp provides paper certificates and the
annual "Thank You" newspaper advertisement, paricipants also recommended providing
acknowledgement such as a plaque to be posted on the building recognizing the building as
3-10 tJlI2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
"high pedormance building". Additionally, the participants asked the utilty to consider
providing certficates to members of the. design team for their participation in the program.
Other areas for investigation include rewarding exemplary projects with an annual award for
their outstanding pedormance.
5. Provide Incentives for Project Leads. PacifiCorp curently offers Design Team Honorariums
for new constrction leads that participate in the energy effciency programs. Nexant
recommends expanding the awareness of this award to the design community.
3.6.2 Project Identification
Projects wil be identified through a variety of sources. Architectue, engineering and
development firms should be contacted by the program facilitator on a regular basis to lear of
newly awarded projects that fit the program criteria. Major projects are often publicized at a
stage where the process can stil be effective. A variety of constrction data services could also
be employed if needed to meet program volume requirements. A project screening process is
recommended to ensure buildings meet applicable size and savings potentiaL.
Some building tyes are predominant in the constrction market, and others have relatively small
areas built each year. Furermore, cycles of supply and demand dictate that some building types
are built in profusion in one year and less in another year. For example, speculative offce
buildings are built for a number of years, until the market for offce space is satuated. Then
developers refrain from building until vacancy rates catch up.
Energy use intensity vares considerably by building tye. Generally, buildings with high energy
intensities have more savings potential and vice versa. Parking garages, warehouses, dormitories,
and housing all have relatively low usage levels. If the program were to address a preponderance
oflow-intensity building tyes, overall savings wil be lower. Similarly, offices, hospitals and
labs have relatively high intensities; thus, for the same building area, savings are likely to be
higher.
Average building areas vary for the building tyes due to fuctionality, constrction and real
estate practices, etc. While building size doesn't necessarily mean more or less savings per
square foot, larger projects save more per project, and more savings are realized with fewer
projects. Cost effectiveness increases, as the ratio of administrative and consulting costs to
savings is enhanced.
3.6.3 Project Screening
It is recommended that buildings paricipating in the comprehensive approach have the following
characteristics:
(."Nenr 200 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements 3-11
.
.
.
New Constrution Evaluation Sect 3
· Project must be new constrction or major renovation. If major renovation, the scope of the
design must include existing square footage or where the prior systems or building does not
meet the owner/tenants requirements.
· The vast majority of the facility's energy using systems must be subject to the applicable
state energy code.
· Projects should be at an early stage of schematic design. A high degree of flexibility must
stil be available regarding choices for building design, insulation, HV AC, and lighting
systems.
· The design team and owner must be proactively involved in all project meetings.
Whenever possible, the design assistance should be provided during the "programming" or
"schematic design" phase. The largest potential savings, at the lowest incremental cost, are often
achieved though work at this stage in the process.
Due to the selection process between the comprehensive versus systems approach, Nexant
recommends a formal screening process be developed for partcipation in the program. A simple
one or two page application provides a minimal hurdle to screen the proactive design teams that
have interest and buy-in to integrated design. The application would serve as the request for
approval and the source of information to qualify potential projects for the program. Through a
thorough review of the application, PacifiCorp can judge the level of commitment from the
design team and owner to participate as well as discern whether there is suitable time to
contrbute to the design based on the project's schedule.
An added benefit of the screening process is to provide PacifiCorp with a mechanism to scale the
level of effort for the project and dedicate appropriate engineering and involvement
commensurate with the project's size.
Key components of the application include:
· Building size
· Design and constrction milestones
· Availability of programming or schematic design documents
· Anticipated building purose and occupancy levels
· Level of interest/udget available for high performance design
· Design team's level of paricipation in integrated design approach
· Effciency project goals such as LEED, tax incentives, owner requirements
3-12 t' IV200 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construion Evaluation
3.7 NEW CONSTRUCTION/MAJOR RENOVATION DESIGN ASSISTANCE PATHWAYS
To accommodate a wider array of paricipants, Nexant suggests offering two pathways for
design teams to utilize the program. The design assistance path provides utilty-paid consulting
services for the owner and design team to serve as a resource for facilitating integrated design.
The certification path allows customers who have the energy simulation resources in-hand to
pursue high-effciency design and submit it to the program upon completion of their design. Both
pathways provide equal incentive levels while affording flexibility to the design teams to utilize
the resources that best meet their needs. An ilustration of these pathways are shown in the figue
below and described in the following sections.
i1i:N 2006 Energy FinAnswer! Program Enhancements 3-13
.New Costruction Evaluation Section 3
New Construction Design Assistance Procss
.
De Assia Paih ce. Pat
.Figure 3-4. New ConstructionlMajor Renovation Design Assistance Process
3-14 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Progam Enhancements t1 lI
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
3.7.1 Design Assistance Path
Providing quality information in a timely fashion is critical to incorporating energy efficiency
measures into buildings. It is also important to provide high-quality design assistance services in
a consistent maner so that design teams become familiar with the process, roles and
responsibilties, and expectations.
Flexibilty and scalabilty of engineering services are two key items that should be weighed
heavily when administering a program that is designed to support a design process. The
framework described in the following sections is intended to serve as a guide. Individual projects
may have specific needs that cause the schedule to hasten or slow or the level of effort to var. In
smaller markets, buildings may be smaller and have less complex systems. The facilitator,
energy consultants, and program process should have the flexibility to respond to project-
specific needs in a cost-effective and timely maner.
The thee-meeting strctue that is proposed in the following sections is aimed at providing a
framework from which to provide timely feedback at critical periods within the design process.
Meetings may be conducted in person, tele-conference, or web-conference. The costs included in
this report reflect tele- or web-conferences between the design team and the energy consultant in
order to keep costs down for the anticipated volume of small strctues. Between meetings there
are exchanges between the utility, energy consultant, and the design team. The schedule and
duration of time between each meeting can be varied to accommodate the design team's needs.
However Nexant recommends maintaining key milestone meetings to ensure that progress
towards energy efficient decisions are achieved.
3.7.1.1 Technical Consultant Selection
Success of the design assistance process wil rely heavily on high quality technical expertise,
dedicated program staff, and solid project management. As such, PacifiCorp should select only
top tier firms to provide design assistance services under the program.
PacifiCorp curently maintains a consulting arrangement with a comprehensive list of top tier
firms under Energy FinAswer. These firms are familar with PacifiCorp's technical
requirements and program procedures. Initially, Nexant recommends selecting firms from this
pool to train them to implement the design assistance services. As customer demand increases,
PacifiCorp may choose to solicit and trin additional providers.
3.7.1.2 Meeting 1: Scoping meeting
The scoping meeting is the offcial "kick-off' of the process. The meeting includes
representatives of the owner, architects, engineers, utility and sometimes the developer and
contrctor(s), along with the faciltator. At this meeting, the schedule is established, the
schematic design of the building is reviewed and a list of potential strategies to be reviewed
durng the process is discussed.
ttiv 2006 Energy FinAnswer0 Program Enhancements 3-15
.
.
.
New Construion Evaluation section 3
The scoping meeting also provides an opportity for the design team and owner to discuss the
scope of the utility-fuded analysis. If the customer desires additional services from the
consultant, they may contract separately for those items (e.g. LEED certification, non-electrc
fuel analysis).
The roles and responsibilities associated with Meeting 1 are as follows:
Table 3.3. Roles and Responsibilties after Meeting 1
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.Develop baseline model accrding toFaciltate questions or concerns Title 24 utilzing input from the design Provide programming documents to
with process.team's programming documents.energy consultant.
Prepare and execute Design Team
contract.Model strategies determined in the Provide estimated measure costs
kick-off meeting.for seleced strategies.
Prepare Initial Site Visit Report
(ISVR) for presentation in Meeting 2.
A tyical schedule for the process is shown in Figue 3-5.
Meeting i
Develop Baseline Model
Evaluate Strategies
Evaluate Economics
Week i Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week?Week I Week 11.,.
.
i
Ii...
i I
.
Q-\.
I .
Meetng 2
Develop Bundle Models
Develop Report
QC Process & Final Draft
Rp.nnrt
Meetig 3
Figure 3-5. Example Energy Design Assistance Process Schedule
3.7.1.3 Meeting 2: Schematic Design Meeting
Upon completion of the initial computer modeling, the design team is presented with detailed
results of the energy savings for a number of viable energy savings strategies. Using costs
provided by the design team, simple payback information for each individual strategy is
presented. The design team is then challenged to weigh the value of the strategies and group
them into packages called "design alternatives". Typically, three design alternatives are
3-16 I;Ne200 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
developed in increasing levels of aggressiveness. The design alternatives are then incorporated
into the model for detailed analysis.
The packaged approach provides significant benefit over the measure-level requirement that
requires each measure to be evaluated and incentivized individually. The goal of the proposed
mechanism is to treat the building as a fuctionally integrated strctue rather than a base
building with "add-on" effcient systems. By combining the strtegies into design alternative
packages, the influence of trade-offs and interactions between systems can be appropriately
evaluated.
After agreement on the design alternatives, the energy consultant wil draft the Energy Analysis
Report (EAR). To fuher ensure reliable, accurate, and consistent results, the draft EAR is
submitted to another third-part energy engineering firm for quality control (QC). Nexant
recommends that PacifiCorp utilize the existing QC process for the design assistance program.
Table 3-4. Roles and Responsibilties After Meeting 2
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.
Refine baseline modeL.
Provide refined design features and
Faciltate questions or concerns costs, if necessary.
with process.
Prepare and execute Incentive
Develop three "bundle" models
based upon input from design team.
Agreement to building owner.
Prepare Energy Analysis Report
(EAR) and submit the project for third
party QC process. Incorporate QC
comments into the EAR for
presentation in Meeting 3
Note: commissioning report is not
developed until construction
document phase.
3.7.1.4 Meeting 3: Design Development Meeting
The third component of the process presents the totalized energy and economic impacts
associated with each design alternative. Through the energy consultant's development of the
EAR, the team meets to review the results of the bundles and is given the opportnity to select
one for incorporation into the fmal design. This meeting also includes the presentation of the
incentive offers to the owner. The owner is asked to sign the agreement after they have had the
opportity to review the terms. The program's intent is to have the incentive agreement signed
prior to the owner's purchasing of equipment. However, certin long-lead items may need to be
purchased before the owner is able to make a decision regarding a specific bundle selection.
Table 3-5. Roles and Responsibilties After Meeting 3
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
tJNe 200 Energy FinAnswe¡4 Prram Enhancements 3-17
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Section 3
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.Maintain contact with design team Select appropriate bundle of
Faciltate questions or concerns respond to questions or concerns measures. Sign incentive
with process.with modeL.agreement.
3.7.1.5 Construction Document Review
After the desìgn alternative has been selected and incorporated ìnto the constrctìon documents
(CD), the design team ìs responsible for providìng the energy consultant wìth the complete CD
package. The energy consultant wìl review the documents and check the specifications to ensure
the selected design alternatives are ìncluded and identìfied as intended. If some measures ofthe
final desìgn alternatìve selection have been overlooked, efforts wil be made to encourage the
desìgn team to incorporate them at this point. If these efforts prove unsuccessful, the savings
estìmates and corresponding measure incentìve levels (discussed below) wìl be reduced
accordingly. At this poìnt, ifthe desìgn team has incorporated measures that provide savings
beyond the energy savings threshold, the full desìgn team incentìve ìs provìded.
Table 3.6. Roles and Responsibilties for Construction Document Review
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.Correct omissions in construction
Facilitate questions or concerns Review construction documents for documents. Communicate changes
with process.inclusion of selected measures.to energy consultant.
Pay the Design Team
reimbursement after satisfactory Notify design team of omissions.i
review of the construction
documents.
Develop commissioning plan for
measures to be included in as-built
facilty.
3.7.1.6 Commissioning/Finallnspection
Once the buildìng constrctìon has progressed to the poìnt that the selected strategies have been
ìnstalled and their operation can be revìewed, the buìldìng owner is responsìble for executing the
commìssioning plan.
Varìatìons found for each strategy as compared to its expected fuctìonality, characterìstics, and
scope of installation are documented. If variations are found for specìfic strategies, the energy
simulation model is refined to match the fuctìonality, characteristics and or scope of the
verified strategìes. The as-built model is then used to calculate the final energy impacts. The
final inspectìon report ìs issued to the desìgn team and the buìldìng owner.
3-18 t1Ne2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
Table 3.7. Roles and Responsibilties for Commissioning/Finallnspection
Facilitator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.Execute commissioning plan and
Facilitate questions or concerns Review commissioning report.provide report to Energy
with process.Consultant.
Pay the building owner incentive Notify design team of deficiencies.
when project is complete.
Refine energy simulation model and
prepare final inspection report.
3.7.2 Certification Path
The certfication path is aimed at providing customers with an option to participate in the New
Constrction program with high effciency designs, while allowing them the flexibility to utilize
their own resources in lieu of PacifiCorp' s consultant base. Through this path, the customer is
responsible for designing their building to exceed the i 0% energy performance threshold as well
as contracting and fuding the energy simulation analysis. Upon completion of the Constrction
Documents (CDs), the owner submits the simulation analysis and the CDs to PacifiCorp for
review. PacifiCorp, at their cost, wil elect to review the energy simulation model and the
constrction documents to determine whether the energy performance requirements have been
met.
3.7.2.1 Construction Document and Simulation Model Review
After the energy savings design alternatives has been selected and incorporated into the
constrction documents (CD), the design team is responsible for providing PacifiCorp with the
complete CD package and the energy simulation modeL. The energy consultant wil review the
CDs and check the specifications for each measure are included. Similarly, the energy consultant
wil review the energy simulation model to ensure the selected design alternatives and associated
energy savings are calculated in accordance with program requirements. The energy consultant
wil provide a quality control review sumary of the findings to the design team for
consideration. If some measures of the final design alternative selection have been overlooked or
the simulation model needs to be modified, efforts wil be made to encourage the design team to
reconcile them at this point. If these efforts prove unsuccessful, the savings estimates and
corresponding measure incentive levels (discussed below) wil be reduced accordingly. At this
point, if the design team has incorporated measures that provide savings beyond the energy
savings theshold, the full design team incentive is provided.
l. Ne 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements 3.19
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Section 3
Table 3-8. Roles and Responsibilties for Construction Document Review
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.Review construction documents for Correct omissions in construction
Facilitate questions or concerns inclusion of selected measures.documents. Communicate changes
with process.to energy consultant.
Review energy simulation model for
Pay the Design Team compliance with program
reimbursement after satisfactory requirements.
review of the construction
documents.Notify design team of omissions.
Develop commissioning plan for
measures to be included in as-built
facility.
3.7.2.2 Commissioning/Final Inspection
Once the building constrction has progressed to the point that the selected strategies have been
installed and their operation can be reviewed, the building owner is responsible for executing the
commissioning plan.
Variations found for each strategy as compared to its expected fuctionality, characteristics, and
scope of installation are documented. If variations are found for specific strategies, the energy
simulation model is refined to match the fuctionality, characteristics and or scope of the
verified strategies. The as-built model is then used to calculate the final energy impacts. The
final inspection report is issued to the design team and the building owner.
Table 3-9. Roles and Responsibilties for Commissioning/Finallnspection
Faciltator Energy Consultant Design Team/Owner
Maintain contact with design team.Execute commissioning plan and
Faciltate questions or concerns Review commissioning report.provide report to Energy
with process.Consultant.
Pay the building owner incentive Notify design team of deficiencies.
when project is complete.
Refine energy simulation model and
prepare final inspection report.
3.8 INCENTIVES
A key component of the design assistance process in addressing the known market barriers
associated with energy efficient new constrction is the incentive monies. The program provides
3-20 1I.1l200 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.
.
.
8ection3 New Construion Evaluation
two categories of incentives: design team incentives and energy efficiency technology measure
incentives.
3.8.1 Design Team Incentives
The design team incentive package is expected to have a two-fold impact (1) to encourage
designers and engineers to bring projects to the program (Design Team Honorarium); and (2) to
offset a portion of the expenses for their participation (Design Team Reimbursement).
3.8.1.1 Design Team Honorarium
A $1,500 design team honorarium is curently offered to design professionals involved in new
constrction and major renovation projects to encourage their participation paricipate early in
the design phase. To receive the honorarium, the recipient must be a design professional of
record for the project, provide a signed letter of intent, and submit a completed application form.
Nexant recommends maintaining the same eligibility requirements; however due to additional
incentives through the design process, the honorarum can be reduced to $1,000. The incentive is
payable upon PacifiCorp's receipt of the honorarium application form and the project application
for participation in the program.
3.8.1.2 Design Team Reimbursement
As described earlier, design team incentives can offset a portion of the expenses for the design
team's parcipation, which is a critical component to the success of the design assistance
initiatives. These efforts may include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Attending design assistance meetings.
· Reviewing energy efficiency measures.
· Calculating costs of energy effciency measures.
· Submittng constrction documents for review.
· Completing other tasks directly related to the program.
The design team reimbursement package is a fixed value based on the square footage of the
facility. A representative summar of the incentive levels as a fuction of the building size is
shown in
t1Nenr 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Prora Enhancements 3-21
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Sectin 3
Table 3-10. Nexant recommends maintaining flexibilty to change these values depending on
market responses to the program.
3-22 f.Nex2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
Table 3.10. Representative Design Team Reimbursement Incentive Levels
Design Team
Building Size Reimbursement
':20,000 $4,000
20,000-49,999 $6,000
50,000-99,999 $8,000
100,000-399,999 $10,000
400,000.00 +$12,000
The design team incentive package is provided after the energy consultant's review of the CDs.
If the design team has incorporated measures that provide savings beyond the energy savings
theshold (10%), the full design team incentive is provided. Payment is anticipated to be
provided to one entity (architect, engineer, etc.). It is the design team's responsibilty to
determine the disburement of monies between the various parties.
3.8.2 Building Owner Incentives
To help offset incremental capital costs associated with incorporating additional energy
efficiency measures, financial incentives should be provided to building owners upon completion
of the project. Based upon other utility programs and feedback from roundtable participants,
Nexant recommends a progressive incentive strcture that encourages building owners to "push
the envelope" and incorporate a wide-range of energy effciency measures. Another benefit of
the proposed incentive strcture is that the sliding scale encourages design teams and owners to
minimize value-engineering since the incentive per kWh also changes with savings. Figue 3-6
ilustrates the representative incentive strctue. Estimates of effciency measure incentive
monies have been calculated using the incentive levels representative of those available through
PacifiCorp's Energy FinAwer Program.
t1NeQIf 200 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements 3-23
.
.
.
New Construction Evaluation Section 3
'6
~IIII
~~
Gl.~ë
GlU.5
$0.20
$0.18
$0.16
$0.14
$0.12
$0.10
$0.08
$0.06
$0.04
$0.02
$-
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
Percent Savings Above Applicable Coe
Figure 3.6. Representative Measure Incentive Structure
Although Nexant recommends pursing the tiered incentive strctue to achieve maximum
savings, PacifiCorp may choose to maintain a consistent incentive offering across the Energy
FinAswer program as an initial offerig ($0.12 per annual kWh saved plus $50 per average kW
saved). Upon successful deployment of the design assistance program, PacifiCorp.may choose to
modify incentive levels and strctues to better align with market demands.
IfPacifiCorp chooses the standard incentive offer for new constrction or major renovation
projects achieving or exceeding the 10% energy savings threshold, Nexant recommends three
key modifications from the curent Energy FinAswer program:
· Remove the measure level cap at 50% of the incremental cost
· Remove the project level cap to provide incentives to provide a simple payback greater
than one year
· Increase the savings cap on lighting measures from 50% to 75%. Limiting lighting
savings encourages design teams to focus on more comprehensive projects. However,
increasing the cap enables greater flexibility for cutting-edge designs and improved
controls sequences. Nexant encourages PacifiCorp to continue investigating the benefits
and costs of increasing or removing this cap in futue program refinements.
Regardless of the incentive strctue chose, Nexant recommends providing building owner
incentives upon completion ofPacifiCorp's acceptance of the Final Inspection Report.
3-24 200 Energy FinAnswer4 Proram Enhancements tlNe
.8ection3 New Construction Evaluation
3.9 PROGRAM IMPACT AND SAVINGS GOALS
Based upon data provided by PacifiCorp and discussions with the design community, the vast
majority of the buildings that participate in the Energy FinAswer program are taking a systems-
based approach rather than a comprehensive approach. As such, there is potential for incremental
savings within two key areas:
· Through earlier involvement in the design process, additional measures and savings could be
achieved.
· By aggressively targeting the design community with an effort focused on their needs wil
yield additional projects.
The costs provided for the administration of the program (inclusive of consultant costs) are based
upon Nexant's experience with similar programs in other service territories. The design .
assistance approach proposed herein includes tuey costs associated with
· Program redesign and a program manual
· Utilty program management
. · Facilitator marketing and outreach
· Third part quality control
· Energy consultant implementation of the three meetings and all associated deliverables
· Design team and building owner incentives
Estimated incremental savings impacts over a five-year implementation of a design assistance
template in Idaho correspond to approximately 5 to 8 program participants, or nearly 300,000
square feet of new commercial and/or industrial floor area completed by Year 5.
The corresponding estimated savings of 950,000 kWh realized though a refined program
offering are achievable given the expected continued growth in PacifiCorp's commercial market.
.
tlNeanr 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements 3-25
*It is assumed that the program wil continue beyond five years, rather than sunset. Therefore projects started in
Year 5 wil be completed in Year 6.
. 3.10 PROGRAM INTEGRATION
The comprehensive new constrction program described above applies to many different tyes
of facilities. However, opportities wil arise where the process described herein does not
apply. Examples may include projects that target only a few select energy-using systems or for
specific facilties where energy code does not apply. As shown in Figue 3-2, new ¡
constrction/major renovation projects that do not fit into the Energy FinAswer comprehensive
program or FinAswer Express wil fall into the standard Energy FinAswer program.
.
Table 3-12 provides a sumary of the key program details for the Energy FinAswer Design
Assistance Process and the standard Energy FinAswer process for the following cases:
· New constrctionfajor renovation where energy code applies to the building
· New constrctionfajor renovation when energy code does not apply
· Retrofit
This table provides a summary of the Energy FinAnswer program details. For projects with
component-based improvements, participants are encouraged to participate in FinAswer
Express.
3-26 I.Nenr2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements
.Section 3 New Construction Evaluation
Table 3.12. New Construction/Major Renovation Program Matrix
Program Design
Assistance Process Standard Standard Standard
Project ScoDe Comorehensive Svstem Svstem Svstem
TYDe New/Major renovation New/Major renovation New/Major renovation Retrofi
Energy code Yes Yes No Noapplies
Energy Effciencv Incentive levels & caDS
Incentive level $0. 12/kWh+$50/kW $0.12/kWh+$50/kW $0.121kWh+$50/kW $0. 12/kWh+$50/kW
50% of cost No Yes Yes Yescap
1 yrsimple No Yes Yes Yespayback cap
Lighting 75%50%50%50%
savinas caD
Energy 10% - whole building Qualifying equipmentsavings None none
threshold basis must exceed code.
Design Team pa"ments
Honorarium $1,000 $1,000 Not available Not available
Incentives Based on project size Not available Not available Not available
3.11 CONCLUSION
. There are many potential benefits of a non-residential new constrction energy design assistace
program in Idaho. The vast majority of the newly constrcted commercial buildings are small
(less than 20,000 square feet) and the potential for comprehensive analysis is limited. As such,
many of these projects wil be better served through the FinAswer Express program. However,
when a larger project is encountered, the design assistance program can be available to assist the
design team/owner with an integrated design approach. Based upon the anticipated savings from
each project, cost-control components wil need to be put into place to ensure program cost-
effectiveness. IfPacifiCorp's pool of qualified energy consultants are from out of town, Nexant
suggests implementing web-conferences for the thee design assistance meetings.
.
t1Nell 200 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements 3-27
.
.
.
Section 4 References
ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 90.1 Cognizant TC: TC 9.6, Systems Energy Utilzation.
2001. ANS/IASHRAEI/ESNA 90.1-2001 Energy Standardfor Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. ASHRAE 90.1_2001.
ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committee 90.1 Cognizant TC: TC 7.6 Systems Energy
Utilization. 2004. ANS/IASHRAEI/ESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Standardfor Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings ASHRAE 90. 1 _2004.
California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Design Resources. Design Brief, Integrted
Building Design.
California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Design Resources. Design Brief, Options and
Opportnities.
California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Design Resources. Advanced Offce Building
Design.
Federal Energy Management Program. Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines. DOEÆE-0249.
Federal Energy Management Program, Federal Leadership in High Perfomrance and Sustainable
Buildings-Memorandum of Understanding.
IECC 2003.2003 International Energy Conservation Code. Fourh Printing, April 2004.
International Code CounciL.
IECC 2006. 2006 International Energy Conservation Code First Printing, Januar 2006.
International Code CounciL.
Langdon, Davis. Examining the Cost of Green. October 2004.
Quantum Consulting. National Energy Effciency Best Practices Study. Volume NR8-Non-
Residential New Constrction Best Practices Report. December 2004.
Quantum Consulting. National Energy Efficiency Best Practices Study. Volume NRS-Non-
Residential Large Comprehensive Incentive Programs Best Practices Report. December
2004.
Summit Blue Consulting, LLC. Colorado Demand-Side Management Programs. Impact Cost
Effectiveness, Process and Customer Satisfaction Evaluations. March 2006.
Summit Blue Consulting, LLC. Impact and Process Evaluation of the Bid 2001 Program.
February 2003.
California Energy Commission, Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CEC-400-2006-002, 2006.
ClMW 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements 4-1
.
.
.
References Section 5
California Energy Commission, 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards For Residential and
Non Residential Buildings, P400-03-001F-M, 2005.
Washington State Building Code Council, 2005. Washington State Energy Code 2004 Edition,
Chapter 51-11 WAC
Web Sites
Avista Utilities. 2006. www.avistautilities.comlsaving/com incentives. asp
BC Hydro. 2006. Power Smart Product Incentive Program.
htt://www.bchydro.comlbusiness/index.html
Consortium for Energy Effciency. 2006. www.ceel.org/
Energy Trust of Oregon. 2006. www.energytrust.orglbusiness/index.html
ENERGY STAR. 2006. ww.cnergystar.gov
Idaho Power. 2006.
ww.idahopower.comlenergycenter/energveffciencyNourBusiness/default.htm
National Grid. 2006. http://ww.nationalgridus.comlmasselectric/business/energyeffï3 large.asp
New Jersey's Clean Energy Program. 2006.
ww.njsmartstarbuildings.comlmain/ equip inc.html
Northwest Energy Effciency Allance. Better Bricks. 2006. http://www.betterbricks.coml
PG&E, 2006. ww.pge.comlbiz/rebates/
Puget Sound Energy. 2006. ww.pse.com/solutionsfForBusiness EfficiencyPrograms.aspx
Xcel Energy. 2006. ww.xcelenergy.comlXLWEB/CDA/0.3080.l-1-3 4530-282-2 68 132-
O,OO.html
4-2 "IVQÐr2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Progam Enhancements
.
.
.
Appendix A Incentive Alignment Data
Table A-O-l, Inactive Project Summary.
Monthly Energy Cost
Demand Annual Energy Gross Customer Savings
Project Number Savinas lkW)Savinas (kWll\Incremental Cost 1$\ -
4459 281 4,508,287 $523,389 $177,609
4826 143 1,760,340 $471,374 $65,812
6426 -2,112,305 $280,000 $63,694
4061 45 989,282 $272,565 $34,576
6362 93 808,521 $221,488 $38,180
4402 95 904,964 $212,210 $35,299
4257 42 924,015 $197,921 $34,124
4371 46 817,878 $190,519 $29,177
5769 132 835,003 $179,018 $44,765
5577 109 590,132 $169,748 $26,212
6099 23 661,105 $149,763 $22,612
6026 23 887,695 $128,121 $29,822
5605 18 609,651 $116,979 $20,632
6657 21 455,520 $110,293 $16,852
5921 35 610,706 $106,989 $21,824
5844 55 598,417 $104,469 $22,810
4956 21 467,447 $85,760 $16,286
4820 33 470,380 $73,626 $17,229
4420 24 528,260 $59,791 $18,461
6064 43 440,961 $59,247 $19,737
6025 35 327,082 $46,157 $12,806
6365 57 1,007,108 $194,220 $38,826
4309 67 193,428 $35,302 $15,745
4399 19 198,318 $32,083 $7,585
6316 41 269,194 $25,560 $14,201
6233 34 227,789 $21,134 $11,914
5747 11 146,746 $11,028 $5,396
6107 11 57,080 $7,081 $3,324
6557 -108,864 $6,424 $3,464
4313 135 672,973 $226,313 $40,354
5658 94 2,063,168 $877,370 $76,190
5757 23 157,662 $105,596 $6,620
6563 28 63,005 $48,026 $6,055
6624 233 1,167,500 $1,072,639 $69,704
5817 60 152,747 $181,252 $8,972
6427 31 268,477 $293,030 $10,640
6357 -117,810 $180,000 $3,552
6505 -36,372 $28,108.00 $1,157
5958 93.9 821,356 $199,237.00 $38,700
6008 -6,941 $5,807.00 $221
5667 37.3 64,440 $50,400.00 $7,478
6161 -46,205 $45,000.00 $1,470
6107 97.8 713,981 $119,498.00 $36,041
Total 2,388 28,869.115 $7.524,535 $1,176,127
l¿NeIl 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements A.1
.
.
.
Incentive Alignnt Data
Table A-O-2.lnactive Project Summary Analysis.
.
Calculated
Project Final Calculated Calculated $/Incr. Customer
Number Incentive Payback $/kWhSaved Costs
4459 $241,142 2.9 $0.05 46%
4826 $218,391 7.2 $0.12 46%
6426 $140,000 4.4 $0.07 50%
4061 $120,974 7.9 $0.12 44%
6362 $81,350 5.8 $0.10 37%
4402 $106,105 6.0 $0.12 50%
4257 $87,767 5.8 $0.09 44%
4371 $91,346 6.5 $0.11 48%
5769 $80,805 4.0 $0.10 45%
5577 $58,483 6.5 $0.10 34%
6099 $65,763 6.6 $0.10 44%
6026 $64,061 4.3 $0.07 50%
5605 $58,490 5.7 $0.10 50%
6657 $55,147 6.5 $0.12 50%
5921 $53,495 4.9 $0.09 50%
5844 $52,235 4.6 $0.09 50%
4956 $40,445 5.3 $0.09 47%
4820 $36,088 4.3 $0.08 49%
4420 $29,018 3.2 $0.05 49%
6064 $18,243 3.0 $0.04 31%
6025 $23,079 3.6 $0.07 50%
6365 $97,110 5.0 $0.10 50%
4309 $13,678 2.2 $0.07 39%
4399 $16,042 4.2 $0.08 50%
6316 $12,780 1.8 $0,05 50%
6233 $8,856 1.8 $0.04 42%
5747 $3,271 2.0 $0.02 30% :
6107 $3,541 2.1 $0.06 50%
6557 $3,212 1.9 $0.03 50%
4313 $86,440 5.6 $0.13 38%
5658 $216,076 11.5 $0.10 25%
5757 $20,089 16.0 $0.13 19%
6563 $8,961 7.9 $0.14 19%
6624 $143,707 15.4 $0.12 13%
5817 $29,327 20.2 $0.19 16%
6427 $33,747 27.5 $0.13 12%
6357 $14,137 50.7 $0.12 8%
6505 $4,365 24.3 $0.12 16%
5958 $99,619 5.1 $0.12 50%
6008 $833 26.3 $0.12 14%
5667 $9,598 6.7 $0.15 19%
6161 $5,545 30.6 $0.12 12%
6107 $21,327 3.3 $0.03 18%
Appendix A
A-2 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements l;.ll
.
.
.
Appendix B Roundtable Participation Information
Thee roundtables were conducted on July 13,2006 to solicit information from the local design
community about the design assistance process.
Table 8-0-1. Roundtable Participants.
Role Attendees
Developers 4
General Contractors 1
Architects 4
Engineers 9
Comments from the design teams supported a process that is involved early, provides technical
and monetary support, and is marketed to appropriate decision makers. The comments were
categorized into two components.
Marketing comments:
· Expand outreach to trade organizations and the design community
· A generalized marketing brochure that provides cost and savings ranges associated with
common technologies would be beneficiaL.
· Account representatives are crucial in program rollouts.
· Understand each target market and tailor outreach to suit.
· Develop a certification program for projects that participate in the program.
· Let the designer know when the owner gets the incentive check so they know the loop is
closed.
Process Comments:
· Simplify and streamline program procedures.
· Extend constrction completion dates longer than a year to include tenant improvement
work.
· Provide consistent and clear requirements regarding savings and incentive calculations.
· Have prescriptive and custom processes.
· Energy savings threshold of i 0% better than code is a barrer to some people, but
encouraged by others.
t1Ne 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Program Enhancements B-1
.
.
.
Roundtable Participation Information AppendixB
· Design team incentive is appropriate; however, payment should go to the design team or
the part has the majority of the influence on the project.
· Consider a performance-based design incentive strcture.
· Include ROI in report outputs--it is desired by many clients over and above simple
payback.
· Tailor project delivery for the different owners.
· Consider marketing renewable energy.
· Have design review after the "value engineering phase" to make sure that measures aren't
value engineered out.
· Consider providing LEED support activities through the program.
· Make it mandatory for AE to split design incentive with EE.
· Encourage sliding scale for owner incentive.
· Solve stocking problem on premium T8 systems.
B-2 I;Ne2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Progam Enhancements
.
.
.
Appendix C Design Assistance Cost Information
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5*Total
Design & Admin 1 $14,500 $19,500 $12,000 $12,000 $19,500 $77,500
Design Assistance $8,500 $13,535 $24,158 $26,871 $26,872 $99,936ConsultinQ Services
Design Team Incentives $4,000 $4,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $32,000
Marketing $2,500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $6,500
Building Owner Incentives $-$8,560 $27,526 $45,050 $45,050 $126,185
Total Utilty Costs $29,500 $46,595 $72,683 $92,921 $100,422 $342,122
Participant Costs $12,500 $34,821 $88,881 $127,781 $127,782 $391,765
Incremental Area $14,500 $19,500 $12,000 $12,000 $19,500 $77,500Started (SF)
*It is assumed that the program will continue beyond five years, rather than sunset. Therefore projects started in
Year 5 wil be completed in Year 6.
i Includes design, administrative activities, evaluation and quality control costs.
tlNean 2006 Energy FinAnswe~ Proram Enhancements C-1
.
.
.
Appendix 0 2004 Market Assessment
"Nenr 2006 Energy FinAnsweri Program Enhancements 0-1
.
.
.
Submitted To:
PACIFICORP
Energy FinAnswerI
Market Assessment
for
PacifiCorp's Idaho
Service Territory -
Preliminary Findings
Submitted By:
~1NexQnT
September 17, 2004
(revised May 25, 2005)
.
.
.
ContentsSection Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................11
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2 UPPER BOUNDARY OF POTENTIAL ENERGY SA VINGS .....................................................3
SECTION 3 SAVINGS ADJUSTMENT FOR ID MAT CHARACTERISTICS.......................................4
SECTION 4 EXTRAPOLATION OF FlNANSWER PERFORMANCE IN WA AND UT TO ID .................6
4.1 W A AND UT FINANSWER PROGRAM REVIEW ................................................................................6
4.2 ESTIMTED SAVINGS POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED COSTS .................................................... 7
SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS...............................................................................10
ø'NenT California Energy FinAnswer Market Asssment - Preliminary Findings
. Executive Summary
In an effort to increase the number of comprehensive energy effciency projects undertaken by
commercial, industrial, and agricultual end-use customers within PacifiCorp's Idaho service
terrtory, potential changes in the incentive delivery mechanism of the Energy FinAnswer(j
(FinAnswer) program are being evaluated. Specially, Nexant, Inc. has completed preliminary
steps to assess the savings potential associated with adopting the cash incentive strctue used by
the FinAnswer program within PacifiCorp's Washington and Utah service terrtories.
These preliminar results, arived at through a progressive three-step approach to assessing
market potential from a top-down perspective, indicate that a revision in the incentive structure
could result in energy savings totaling approximately 0.75% of total anual non-residential load
within three years. Total non-discounted costs to PacifiCorp, including program incentives and
administration costs, are expected to be $0.25/kWh of realized energy savings. Table i
summarizes preliminary savings and cost estimates associated with this programmatic change:
Table i. Estimated FinAnswer Program Penormance in 10 1,2,3
Year 1 1,850 160 $428 $207 $381
Year 2 5,560 490 $1,284 $630 $1,143.Year 3 6,940 610 $1,605 $755 $1,602
Total 14,350 1,260 $3,317 $1,592 $3,126
Savings estimates are for a full year program period.
Measure costs represent the net values adjusted for an estimated net to gross ratio of 0.80, but do not include the
impacts of available incentives (Database for Energy Effciency Resources, All Other Non-Residential Programs category,
ww.rt.nwppc.org/deer2005/).
Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter based on an estimated net to gross savings ratio
of 0.80 (Database for Energy Effciency Resources, All Other Non-Residential Programs category,
ww.rt.nwppc.org/deer2005/).
Prior to proceeding with the final steps of the market assessment that wil seek to update these
results using a bottom-up market approach, Nexant recommends that the potential cost-
effectiveness of the program be evaluated using the range of programmatic costs presented in
this report. Marginal cost effectiveness results may indicate an increased level of importance on
the feedback obtained by contacting vendors and customers in the local market. Conversely,
favorable cost-effectiveness results may allow for a less focused market-based effort.
.
l:l1nr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Assssment - Preliminary Findings ii
.
.
.
Section 1 Introduction
This preliminary report sumarizes work completed by Nexant, Inc. to date in conducting a
market assessment of the savings potential associated with modifying the incentive strcture of
PacifiCorp's Energy FinAnswer (FinAswer) program in their Idaho (ID) service territory.
Specifically, the assessment has focused on the electrc savings potential by adopting the
FinAswer incentive strctue curently available in PacifiCorp's Washington (WA) and Utah
(UT) service territories. No other changes in the progrm delivery model, including the
availability of detailed energy studies at no cost to the customer, have been evaluated.
The WA and UT Finswer programs offer customers a first-year savings incentive of
$0.12/kWh plus $50 per average first-year monthly on-peak kW reduction. This incentive
strctue has generated a higher level of program paricipation than the corresponding low-cost
financing mechanism curently available in ID.
As ilustrated below in Figue 1-1, the first three steps of these market assessment activities have
been completed and are reported in this document. Each of these steps has sought to build upon
the previous results and increase the accuracy of the savings estimates. Steps 4 and 5 would
provide fuher refined market information based on a bottom-up market approach including
stakeholder interviews, sureys, and scoping visits.
Step 1: Establish an upper savings boundary for
PacifiCorp's FinAnswer program in 10
Step 2: Adjust savings estimates for regional
factors in PacifiCorp's 10 service territory
Step 3: Compare 10 savings estimates wih
FinAnswets performance in WA and UT
Sufficient Information Obtained,
No Further Assessment
Additional Accuracy Warranted,
Proceed With Steps 4 and 5
Step 4: Conduct market surveys with
regional market stakeholders in 10
Step 5: Interiew key customers in 10 and
conduct a sees of initial scoping visits
Figure 1.1. Approach of 10 FinAnswer Market Assessment
The remainder of this document is strctued as follows:
· Section 2 provides an estimate of the upper savings boundary (i.e., achievable annual MW
savings) for a revised FinAswer program in ID;
t1Nenr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Assessment - Preliminary Findings
.
.
.
Section 1 Introduction
· Section 3 incorporates regional characteristics of the ID market, as well as the experience of
other relevant utilities, into a revised upper savings boundary estimate;
· Section 4 uses the performance of the FinAswer programs in W A and UT to estimate a final
preliminar savings estimate for PacifiCorp's ID service territory; and
· Section 5 outlines recommended next steps.
(,11l1l Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Assessment - Preliminary Rndings 2
.
.
.
Section 2 Upper Boundary of Potential Energy Savings
The FinAswer program targets energy savings from non-residential electrc customers that
implement energy efficiency measures as part of retrofit or new constrction projects. Total
commercial and industral (C&I) electrcity consumption in PacifiCorp's ID service terrtory was
1, i 57,364 MWh for the i 2-month period ending March 2003. i Table 2-1 lists a range of
potential annual savings estimates for energy efficiency programs taken from various recent
market potential studies and discussions with utility company representatives.
Table 2.1. Summary of Recent Market Assessment Results
ACEEE review of regional U.S. energy
effciency market assessments (i) - 2004
PG&E funded industrial energy
efficiency market study (ii) - 2001
Hewlett Foundation study on the energy
effciency potential in CA (iii) - 2002
Electric utilty, California (iv) - 2004
Annual economic potential for C&i
and residential users
Actual savings from industrial
rebate program, 1995 -1999
Annual economic.potential for C&i
and residential users.
C&i assessment but commercial
end-users provide bulk of savings
Reflects experience in C&i sector
over the last 15-20 years
Based on utilty C&i program
results and recent market studies.
1.2%
0.4%
1.3%
1.5% to 2%
Electric utilty, Northeast U.S. (vt 2004 0.5% to 1%
Electric utilty, California (vi) - 2004 1%
Notes: (i) Technical, Economic, and Achievable Potential for Energy Effciency in the U.S., Nadel, Shipley, and Ellott, ACEEE;
(ii) CA Industrial Energy Effciency Market Characterization Study, XENERGY, 2001; (ii) California's Secret Energy Surplus,
2002; (iv), (v), and (vi) all data based on discussions with utilty representatives in September 2004.
Savings estimates listed in Table 2-1 cover studies that have been completed in over ten different
states ranging from the Northeastern U.S. to the Pacific Northwest. Despite the variation of end-
use sectors and geographic areas covered in Table 2-1, the savings estimates in these studies
range between a relatively narow band of 0.5% to 2% of annual consumption. Nexant conducted
interviews with representatives of utilities operating energy effciency incentive programs to
confirm the validity of these market assessments. These discussions, which focused on the
performance of C&I programs, confirm that savings levels between i % and 2% of total annual
C&I electricity consumption are achievable.
To establish an upper savings boundary estimate for a revised FinAnswer program in ID, an
average value within these estimates of 1.5% of annual consumption was utilzed. This
corresponds to a savings estimate of approximately 17,400 MWh/yr (1.5% X 1,157,364 MWh)
in PacifiCorp's ID service territory.
i Source: Usage data provided by PacifiCorp in an email dated August 10, 2004. This value does not include
special contracts customers since they are not eligible to participate in the FinAswer program.
t1Neanr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Assssment - Preliminary Findings 3
.
.
.
Section 3 Savings Adjustment for 10 Market Characteristics
Two main factors contrbute to a recommended downward adjustment of the 1.5% upper savings
boundary estimate for PacifiCorp's ID market established in the previous section. First, energy
prices are lower in PacifiCorp' s ID service terrtory compared to those offered by utilities
operating in near-by states, reducing the strength of economic drvers to implement energy
effciency measures. Figue 3-1 ilustrates that PacifiCorp's industral and commercial rates in
ID are roughly half of comparable average electrcity rates in the Pacific zone and a quarer of
those offered in Mountain zone states (and well below average listed for all other U.S.
geographic zones).
KEY:
Source: EIA average electricity prices (in cents per kWh) for 2003 for the Continental U.S.
Figure 3.1. PacifiCorp 10 C&I Prices (cents per kWh) versus the Continental U.S
Secondly, PacifiCorp's ID service terrtory has a predominantly rual demographic with no
major urban centers. PacifiCorp's ID service terrtory is second smallest (after CA)ofthe six
Western states that it covers, accounting for slightly over six percent of its annual electricity
sales and total number of customers. 2 In general, the size and customer make-up of the ID market
indicates that a more limited potential for achieving energy savings exists than in other parts of
the state or countr. Figue 3-2 ilustrates the relative size ofthe ID service terrtoryin terms of
total number of customers (residential and C&I) and anual C&I electrcity sales-ompared to
PacifiCorp' other service territories.
2 PacifCorp Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.
tlNeanr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Asseent - Preliminary Findings 4
.
.
.
Seclion 1 Introduction
14,00
13,500 ___.______
13,00
12,50
12,000
11,500
l 11,000:: 10,500
g 10,000
= 9,500
"= 9,000eo'" 8,50
~ 8,00
è 7,50.. 7,00
.~....~ 6,500
_ 6,000
5,50
~ 5,000
~ 4,50
æ 4,00= 3,500
.. 3,00
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
°
................................._............_........_......._.._.._....................................................................._........................_......................_......... 650
700
600
LEGEND 550
S. AnnualMWh 500 =~
II Customers g450'"..
400 Ë
-S'"::
350 U..~..
300 1!e::
250 Z
'3~
200 ..
150
100
50
°UT OR WY WA 10 CA
Notes: Customer data from PacfiCorp's 1D- repo for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004. MWh sales data from PacifiCorp's Table, 2003.
Figure 3.2. Comparison of PacifiCorp Service Territories in the Western U.S.
To account for these lower energy prices and the overall composition ofPacifiCorp'i; service
terrtory in ID, the 1.5% upper savings boundary estimate was lowered to approximately 1 %. In
terms of potential energy savings, the application of this adjusted savings estimate translates into
a savings of approximately 11,600 MWh/yr (1% X 1,157,364 MWh) in PacifiCorp's ID service
terrtory.
itNf 5Idaho Energy FinAnswer Maret Assessment - Preliminary Findings
.
.
.
Section 4 Extrapolation of FinAnswer Performance in WA and UT to 10
This section presents revised savings estimates and the costs associated with the implementation
of a revised FinAswer program in ID based on the results of Step 3 of the market assessment
activities (see Figue 1-1). Specifically, fuher refinements have been made to the savings
estimates from Sections 2 and 3 by extrapolating the historical pedormance of the Finswer
program in WA and UT to PacifiCorp's ID market.
4.1 WA AND UT FINANSWER PROGRAM REVIEW
In WA and UT, the FinAswer program has gained momentum in the marketplace, exhibited by
a steady increase in anual electricity savings. Table 4-1 lists key program results for both states
durng the period of 200 1 to 2003.
Table 4.1. FinAnswer Program Penormance in WA and UT*
Washington
2001
2002
2003
Utah
2001
2002
2003
5,539
14,303
21,726
0.22%
0.58%
1.04%
375
1,140
1,689
1,000
6,638
24,412
0.01%
0.05%
0.20%
214
655
2,090
*Note: Based on FinAswer program performance data for 2001 -2003 provided by PacifiCorp.
As can been seen from Table 4-1, savings in PacifiCorp's WA service terrtory as a percentage
of total C&I load are larger than in UT by a factor of five. This is parially attbutable to
momentum in the W A energy effciency marketplace prior to the launch of the FinAnswer
program (where such market activity was effectively non-existent in UT). In addition, the fact
that the C&I load in WA is approximately one-sixth that in UT may contrbute to the varation as
smaller markets can respond more quickly to utility programs (less customers, more interaction
among customers and utilty, etc.).
PacifiCorp's cost of achieving energy savings from Finswer are associated with the costs to
provide the energy analysis services and implementation incentives of $0. 12/kWh plus an
average monthly on-peak kW reduction of $50/kW for first year savings. Cash incentives,
however, are capped at 50% of the eligible energy effciency measure cost. Based on a review of
2002 FinAswer evaluation reports, the total average program costs for WA and UT (in $ per
realized anual gross energy savings) were as follows:3
· Gross measure Cost: $0.23/kWh
· Incentives: $0.09/kWh
· Other Deferred Costs: $0.16/kWh.
3 PacifCorp EnergyFinAnswer 2002 Utah and Washington Program Evaluations. Quantec LLC. August 2004.
i,1Neanr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Assesent - Preliminary Findings 6
.
.
.
8ection4 Extrapolation of FinAnswer Performance in WA and UT to ID
In terms of direct costs to PacifiCorp, the total average estimated cost per unit of realized gross
energy savings from the FinAswer program in W A and UT is $0.25/kWh.
4.2 ESTIMATED SAVINGS POTENTIAL AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
As the size and customer mix ofPacifiCorp's WA service terrtory (in comparison to UT) more
closely approximates the area covered by PacifiCorp in ID, historical program activity in WA
wil be relied on more heavily to predict potential outcomes in ID. Specifically, the 1% savings
of total annual C&I consumption in W A is considered to be a more reasonable estimate for
PacifiCorp's market in ID and consistent with findings presented in Section 2 of this report.
However, to reflect that the ID energy services market (i.e., presence of ESC Os and high
effciency equipment vendors), while beginning to become more active, is stil less developed
then within PacifiCorp's WA service terrtory, the gross estimate has been revised downward to
0.75%. The application of this assumed 0.75% savings estimate equates to an estimated annual
reduction of approximately 8,700 MWh (0.75% X 1,157,364 MWh) in PacifiCorp's ID service
terrtory.
Furher, the 1 % annual savings level for the W A FinAswer program was achieved over a three-
year period. Durng this initial period, the level of annual savings increased significantly between
Years 1 and 2 as the program gained more traction. A similar period (path) of savings ramp-up
should be expected in ID. Figue 4-1 depicts a potential scenario in which the 0.75% annual level
of estimated gross energy savings from a revised FinAswer program in ID are realized over an
initial three-year period as follows: 0.20% in Year 1, 0.60% in Year 2, and 0.75% in Year 3.9,500 0.80%9,000 1l\~C6'" 0.75%~~t:~8,00 ~~~8,000 'J~ ~~~--7,500 ~.,~~
~ 7,000
~ 6,500=e 6,000
~
= 5,500
~-; 5,000
æ 4,500
~
'i 4,000
j 3,500
¡li 3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
o
0.70% ¡
0.65%
'i$tl~~~'l
, ~~
~oi¡it~
b~~
"'~~
0.60% :šI
~QU
:;U
0.55%
0.50%
0.45%
-;0.40% æ
~
~
-g
Oi
~
.~
Oi00
0.35%
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
Year End 1 Year End 3YearEnd 2
Figure 4-1. Potential Ramp-up of Gross Annual FinAnswer Savings in 10
~NeQnr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Assessment - Preliminary Findings 7
.
.
.
Section 4 Extrapolation of FinAnswer Performance in WA and UT to ID
Average measure, incentive, and other deferred program costs taken from the 2002 Evaluation
reports of the W A and UT FinAswer programs have been used to estimate corresponding costs
in ID.4 Table 4-2 summarzes the predicted costs and savings associated with a modified
FinAswer incentive strcture in ID. Cost data contained in Table 4-2 is based on average costs
for the W A and UT program. Due to the wide variation in these cost metrcs between the two
service terrtories, Tables 4-3 and 4-4 are also included to establish estimated low and high-cost
boundaries corresponding to the same estimated savings assumptions.5
Table 4-2. Estimated FinAnswer Program Performance in 101 ,2,3
Year 1 1,850 160 $428 $207 $381
Year 2 5,560 490 $1,284 $630 $1,143
Year 3 6,940 610 $1,605 $755 $1,602
Total 14,350 1,260 $3,317 $1,592 $3,126
Savings estimates are for a full year program period.
Measure costs represent the net values adjusted for an estimated net to gross ratio of 0.80, but do not include the
impacts of available incentives (Database for Energy Effciency Resources, All Other Non-Residential Programs category,
ww.rt.nwppc.org/deer2005/).
Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter based on an estimated net to gross savings ratio
of 0.80 (Database for Energy Effciency Resources, All Other Non-Residential Programs category,
ww.rt.nwpc.org/deer2005/).
Table 4.3. Low Cost Implementation Scenario
Year 1 $332 $163 $211
Year 2 $996 $490 $634
Year 3 $1,246 $612 $793
Subtotal $2,574 $1,265 $1,638
1 Measure costs represent the net values adjusted for an estimated net to
gross ratio of 0.80, but do not include the impacts of available incentives
(Database for Energy Effciency Resourcs, All Other Non-Residential
Programs category, ww.rt.nwppc.org/deer2005/).
4 Other deferred costs include training, adinistrtive support, advertsing, EEM inpections, ongoing evaluation,
modeling/designcontrct, and program management.
5 Tables 4-3 and 4-4 utilize the lowest or highest cost figue that is listed in the 2002 program evaluation reports
for W A and UT (e.g., the low cost scenaro uses the incentive cost from UT ($0.07/kWh) rather than WA
($O.ll/kWh).
f;lfnr Idaho Energ FinAnswer Market Assessment - Preliminary Findings 8
.
.
.
Section 4 Extrapolation of FinAnswer Performance in WA and UT to ID
Table 4.4. High Cost Implementation Scenario
Year 1 $524 $250 $550
Year 2 $1,571 $750 $1,651
Year 3 $1,964 $938 $2,063
Subtotal $4,059 $1,938 $4,265
1 Measure costs represent the net values adjusted for an estimated net to
gross ratio of 0.80, but do not include the impacts of available incentives
(Database for Energy Effciency Resources, All Other Non-Residential
Programs category, ww.rt.nwppc.org/deer2005/).
tlNenr Idaho Energy FinAnswer Market Asessment - Preliminary Findings 9
.
.
.
Section 5 Recommendations and Next Steps
Based on the success of the FinAswer program within PacifiCorp' s UT and W A service
terrtories, proceeding with the revision to the incentive delivery mechanism within the Idaho
market appears to be justified at this stage of the market assessment. However, prior to making
the determination to move forward with steps 4 and 5 of the market assessment (see Figue 1-1),
Nexant recommends that PacifiCorp complete an analysis of the cost-effectiveness ofthe revised
program. Specially, the sensitivity of the results to the low and high-cost implementation
scenarios in Section 4 wil help dictate the appropriate level of effort for steps 4 and 5. Marginal
cost effectiveness results may indicate an increased level of importce on the feedback obtained
by contacting vendors and customers in the local market. Conversely, favorable cost-
effectiveness results may allow for a less focused market-based effort.
i1Mlll Idaho Enery FinAnswer Market Asessnt - PreHminary Findings 10
.
.
1338 S. Foothil Drive, #269
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone].ww.nexant.com
.Program evaluation plans
The purose of program evaluations are to measure and help insure cost effective
program performance, customer service and inform futue program revisions. Program
evaluations provide information for Rocky Mountain Power management, regulators,
progrm delivery staff and third part delivery vendors. Rocky Mountain Power
regularly evaluates demand side management programs in each state and uses
specialized third part evaluator contractors competitively selected to evaluate specific
programs for specific periods.
Rocky Mountain Power's evaluators wil employ a mix of qualitative and quantitative
tools to fulfill the purose of program evaluations including cost effectiveness
assessments, impact and process evaluations. Rocky Mountain Power and their
evaluation contractors recognizes the customer impacts of evaluations and tr to
minimize unecessar contacts while stil acquiring the necessary information. Goals
and tasks common to all program evaluations are presented below. Unique elements to
be considered for each program are then presented. A report outline and evaluation
time line is also included.
Goals of the cost effectiveness assessment:.1. Provide an assessment of program performance without the time or expense of
a full impact evaluation. Each installed measure wil be assumed to have
achieved the deemed savings developed during the planing stage or as
calculated and reported during program delivery. A cost effectiveness only
assessment is tyically used during ramp up periods and or between
comprehensive impact evaluations
2. Calculate actual program performance for the period using actual expenditures,
measure mix, participation counts and the standard cost effectiveness models.
Goals of the impact evaluation:
1. Estimate gross energy (kWh) and demand (kW) savings
2. Estimate net energy (kWh) and demand side (kW) savings
3. Calculate program cost effectiveness with net savings
Goals of the process evaluation:
.
1. Identify if key progrm elements such as incentive levels, incentive delivery,
service incentives and information components are performing as designed.
2. Identify issues or opportities regarding program delivery and administration
3. Recommend any needed changes
Idaho Energy FinAnswer evaluation plan Page I
.
Tasks to perform the cost effectiveness assessment
1. Extract and verify energy and capacity savings, project costs, measure tyes,
etc. data from company or third part administrator data base.
2. Extract and verify utility program costs by category from data bases.
3. Compare energy and capacity savings estimates with those developed during
planning process, as applicable, i.e., deemed unit savings.
4. Calculate program performance for the period using actual costs, actual
savings, and net to gross assumption used during the planning process
employing standard cost effectiveness models.
Tasks to perform the impact evaluation:
1. Extract energy and capacity savings, project costs, measure types, etc. data
from company or third par administrator data base..2. Verify energy and capacity savings, project costs, measure tyes, etc. data from
company or third part administrator data base.
a. Review the quality assurance process to verify each of these steps has
been fully implemented.
b. In addition, the evaluator wil independently review a sample ofthe
quality assurance and inspection reports.
c. Based on this review the evaluator wil assess the level of additional
verification (including on-site measurement and verification) required,
3. Extract and verify utility program costs by category from data bases.
4. Select a statistically valid sample of paricipants and validate reported gross
energy savings though appropriate engineering.
.
a. Engineering or statistical methods include
I. Unit Energy Consumption (DEC) data bases
ii. Simulation modeling
111. Engineering calculations
iv. Billng analysis (including Princeton Scorekeeping Method)
Idao Energy FinAswer evaluation plan Page 2
.5. Perform on-site inspections and short term equipment monitoring on
statistically selected sample to determine:
1. Validity of quality assurance process
n. Original assumptions used in analysis were reasonable
iii. Analysis methods are appropriate
iV. Measures were installed as planed
v. Measures operated as planned
6. Employ a combination of customer and contractor sureys, equipment sales
data and other resources unique to the programs to quantify the activity that
would have occured absent the program. This activity is known as free-
ridership. Quantify activity among non-partcipants that was influenced by the
program. This activity is known as spilover.
a. Estimate existing and improved equipment and equipment operation
practices and resulting efficiency levels.
b. Estimate equipment and equipment operation practices and resulting
effciency levels in the absence of this program.
7. Calculate net to gross ratios including free-ridership and spilover by measure,
customer and/or facility tye..8. Calculate program performance for the period using actual costs, actual
savings, and updated net to gross assumptions employing standard cost
effectiveness models.
.
Tasks to perform the process evaluation
I) Coordinate with impact evaluation efforts if required
2) Determine surey plan, for interviews with paricipants, non-participants, utility
staff, other key market actors specific to the program.
3) Customer surey design and implementation. Complete telephone or on-site
sureys with program participants (customers). The aim of the surey wil be to
determine:
a) How each participant leared about the program
b) Their assessment of the value of the program services
c) Their estimate of the impact of the Progrm equipment or services on their
energy consumption (in coordination with impact evaluation if required)
d) Satisfaction with the program administration
e) Satisfaction with their participation in the Program
f) Whether they implemented any additional energy effciency measures as results
of the program (in coordination with impact evaluation if required)
Idao Energy FinAswer evaluation plan Page 3
.4) Customer survey design and implementation. Complete telephone or on-site
surveys with program non- participants (customers). The aim of the survey wil be
to determine:
a) If the non-participant knew about the program
b) If they parally participated (began, but did not complete the participation
process)
c) Any assessment of the value of the program services, especially incentive
availabilty or levels.
d) Satisfaction with the program administration
e) If they implemented any energy effciency measures that might have qualified
for the program.
f) Reasons for not participating
5) Retailer and/or contractor survey design and implementation. After reviewing
participant complete telephone surveys with selected non-customer participants
such as retailers and/or contractors. The aim of the surey wil be to determine:
a) How each participant learned about the program
b) Their assessment of the value of the program services to their business.
c) Impact of the program incentives on their sales volume of high efficiency
equipment or services.
d) Understanding of program requirements
e) Satisfaction with the program administrator information, training and incentive
application processing.
f) Overall satisfaction with their participation in the program and/or
recommendations for program enhancements.
g) Reasons for not paricipating, especially those retailers and contractors that had
previously been participants.
.
6) Program administration and utilty staff surey design and implementation. The
evaluator wil interview program administration and utilty staff regarding. The aim
of the surey wil be to determine effectiveness of:
a) Marketing
b) Customer application process( es)
c) Customer eligibility criteria, verification process and quality assurance
d) Vendor relations
e) Progrm data collection
f) Utility, implementer and other program coordination
.
Idao Energy FinAswer evaluation plan Page 4
.Evaluation elements unique to Energy
FinAnswer program
The Program is designed to offer incentives calculated on a standard offer basis for
comprehensive projects. Average project sizes are larger than FinAnswer Express. The
program is delivered primarily through company staff working in combination with
third part energy engineers. Marketing is primarily done through personal sellng
including the Rocky Mountain Power account managers. The Program is part of a suite
of programs available to larger customers.
Many of the projects tend to have multiple drvers which indicate that the existing
equipment is not the program baseline. In addition, the absence of a statewide energy
code adds a challenge to understanding prevailng practices and baseline line
equipment efficiency levels. The high impact evaluation data points for both impact
and process evaluations are listed below.
.
Impact and process considerations for measures receiving incentives based on project
specific calculations performed by a third part energy engineer.
1. Appropriate baselines including adjustments for code, end of useful life,
expanded capacity, change of use accounted for.
2. Incentive calculations utilze appropriate and verifiable values and engineering
methods.
3. Qualifying equipment specifications (especially links to the FinAswer Express
program for retrofits) are being followed.
4. Quality assurance processes for energy engineering being followed.
5. Incentive agreements provided to customers prior to purchase.
6. Commissioning requirements are appropriate, consistent and conducted
correctly
7. Project manager review and approval of energy effciency measures prior to
paricipant implementation.
8. Review and approval of commissioning and inspection results prior to paying
incentive.
9. Post installation inspection confirmed efficiency levels and variables affecting
energy savings, final as built energy savings calculations performed and used to
calculate incentive payment.
10. As built cost documentation collected if required, cost limitations applied
correctly, in file and used in calculating final incentive payment.
11. Customer satisfaction with and assessment of program provided energy
engineering value.
Idao Energy FinAnswer evaluation plan PageS
12. Customer and commissioning delivery parter assessment of value of
commissioning and ease of implementation.
13. Is the program reaching new constrction or lost opportity projects
effectively.
14. Energy engineer training on program requirements, equipment standads, codes
and changing best practices is timely and effective.
15. Customer, energy engineer awareness of multiple program offerings and the
integration between them.
Savings analysis during the Energy FinAswer impact evaluation takes into account
that energy savings for each project is calculated by a third par in many cases using
logged data over time. Results are peer reviewed by other another energy engineer
prior to delivery to customers. As such savings estimates are confirmed through a
combination of the methods listed below.
Reasonableness assessment ofthe inputs including logged data and baseline
adjustments.
Reasonableness assessment of calculation methodology/tool selection
Nature and resolution of energy engineer peer review findings
Independent engineering calculations or simulation modeling to approximate
savings estimates on a unit basis for which there is existing industr data.
Examples of unit basis includes kWh per CFM or tons of refrigeration for
compressed air or refrgeration projects.
Re-ruing the engineering models employed by original energy engineer using
evaluation site visit data.
On-site measure installation verification and metering
.
1.
2.
3.
4..
5.
6.
.
Page 6Idaho Energy FinAnswer evaluation plan
.Evaluation Reports
.
Program evaluations wil be available in report format and provide a complete
description of the relevant evaluation objectives and how they were achieved. The final
report wil contain the following elements:
. Executive Summary
. Description of the program, its goals, and objectives
. Statement of the evaluation goals and objectives
. Discussion of methodologies
· Implementation procedures and assumptions for each method
· Data-collection procedures and methods
. Sample design and selection.
. Results and their interpretation
. Conclusions including recommendations for changes
· Appendices with supporting data including engineering calculation,
sureys, etc. as required.
Evaluation timeline
Timeline
1. Initial cost effectiveness assessment included in the Idaho Demand Side
Management Anual Report curently scheduled to be delivered on March
15 of the following year.
2. Initial impact and process evaluations start 15 months after the effective
date and with draft final complete 22 months after the effective date. Final
reports available 25 months after effective date if external review process
takes no more than 30 days.
3. On going impact and process evaluations are completed approximately
every two years with 7- 9 month duration.
.
Idao Energy FinAswer evaluation plan Page 7
.
Attachment 7
MARKT CHARACTERIZATION
REPORT
FOR FINANSWER EXPRESS
.
.
.zaOE FEB I 4 ftrî 10:35
Submitted To:
PACIFICORP
A MlD.1C ENERGY HOlDNGS COMPAY
.
2006 FinAnswerI Express
Market Characterization and
Program Enhancements
Idaho Service Territory
Submitted By:
"~NexQnT
December 29, 2006
(Updated April 11, 2007).
. ContentsSection Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... I
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1-1
.
1.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 ApPROACH TO WORK.................................................... ..........................................................................1-2
1.3 REpORT ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................................................... 1-5
SECTION 2 MEASURE INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2 LIGHTING CONTROLS ............................................................................................................................2-12
2.3 LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNS . ............................................................................................................. 2-16
2.4 LED MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS. ............................................................................................................. 2-19
2.5 UNITARY AC AND HP EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................................ 2-22
2.6 EVAPORATIV COOLERS.......................................................... ..............................................................2-26
2. 7 WATER CHILLING EQUIPMENT (CHILLERS) ...........................................................................................2-29
2.8 PROGRAABLE THRMOSTATS ..........................................................................................................2-37
2.9 OCCUPANCY BASED PTHPIPTAC CONTROLS ...................................................................................... 2-40
2.1 0 VARIBLE FREQUENCY DRIVES ............................................................................................................ 2-43
2.11 ELECTRONICALLY COMMUT A TED MOTORS........................................................................................... 2-47
2.12 PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS ............................................................................................................ 2-52
2.13 SOLID DOOR REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS ...................................................................................... 2-59
2.14 COOL ROOFS .........................................................................................................................................2-66
2.15 PLUG LOAD OCCUPANCY SENSORS ....................................................................................................... 2-70
2.16 TRANSFORMERS ....................................................................................................................................2-74
SECTION 3 SAVINGS POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................ 3-1
SECTION 4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 QAlQC PROCEDURS..........::..:............................................................................................................... 4-3
SECTION 5 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................5-1
APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING COST SURVEY AND RESULTS
APPENDIX B LIGHTING MEASURE INFORMATION
APPENDIX C STANDAR FIXTURE WATTAGE TABLE
APPENDIX D MOTOR VENDOR SURVEY AND RESULTS
APPENDIX E PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING INCENTIVE TARIFF INFORMTION
.
ePNeanr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
. Executive Summary
In June of 2006, PacifiCorp retained Nexant, Inc. (Nexant) to provide assistance with evaluating
the next phase of program improvements for the FinAnsweriI Express and Energy FinAsweriI
energy efficiency programs. The objective of these improvements is to increase cost-effective
electric savings and continue to improve new constrction participation levels.. Consistency of
program delivery across the service territories, except where justified, is also a consideration to
simplify implementation and reduce administrative costs. PacifiCorp currently offers FinAswer
Express in their Idaho, Utah and Washington service territories, while Energy FinAswer is
curently available in Utah and Washington. PacifiCorp expects to fie both programs in
California in 2007.
This report presents the results of the FinAswer Express analysis conducted for the Idaho
service terrtory. Specifically, this effort reviewed seven (7) measures currently included in the
program to confirm their appropriateness and update as necessary current incentive levels, costs,
savings, and measure delivery mechanisms. In addition, Nexant reviewed nine (9) new measures
for possible inclusion in the program based on the criteria that they are market ready
technologies expected to result in cost effective, justifiable savings levels. Table ES-1
summarizes the evaluated energy efficiency measures..Table ES-1. Evaluated Electric Energy Efficiency Measures
Technology Current Potential New
Measure Measure
Lighting 1 ,/
____.._._._____.._........___...n...~.............._........._.......__.....___.._...._...._......_.__..__..........._..........-----------------_....---_.._---_.._-
Lighting controls ,/
LED channel letter signs ,/
LED message center signs ,/
Unitary air conditioners and heat pumps ,/
.._.._-_.-----------_.._-_.._._-,-.........._.-----....-._-------------._...._.._.._...............................-_...~--_.......__......................-
Evaporative coolers ,/
Water chiling packages ,/
Programmable thermostats ,/
Occupancy-based PTHP/PT AC controls ,/--------------------_..._,-....._--.._--------_._"_.----.._...--_.._--
Variable frequency drives ,/
Electronically commutated motors ,/
Premium effciency motors ,/
Solid door refrigerators and freezers ,/
-------_.._--_.._------_.._.._.._._._.--.._-----------------_................_.......__..................._..._.._--_......_-_._........................_-
Cool roofs ,/
Plug load occupancy sensors ,/
Transformers ,/
1 Review of existing prescriptive lighting measures also included the review of several new
prescriptive categories including T5HO fixtures, ceramic metal halide fixtures, T8 lamp upgrades,
T8 high bay fixtures, and new pulse start metal halide fixture sizes.
uNenr 2006 FinAnswer4 Express Market Characerization and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Table ES-2 summarizes the recommendations from this analysis. Minor changes in program
delivery methods and housekeeping issues are recommended for curent technologies. For all
new technologies, opportnities to avoid complex and expensive custom analysis efforts were
identified and recommended.
Only high-efficiency transformers were not recommended for a prescriptive offering under the
FinAswer Express program at this time, due primarly to upcoming code changes and limited
equipment information and costs for units exceeding the new minimum effciency levels. For all
remaining new technologies, Nexant recommends that PacifiCorp evaluate the cost-effectiveness
of affected measures before incorporating the changes in the progrm.
Table ES-2. Delivery Method Recommendations 1
Pre-Trade Reported Costs Reported Savings
Measure Purchase Ally Deemed Deemed Deemed DeemedAgreementNetworkActualbased on based on Simplified based on base on
Required project measure Analysis project measure
Lighting 2 0/Lighting 0/0/
-_..._..---------.---.-------.--.----------------------------------------_.._--_..-...-._~.._.._..._-----....._....._--_._............................_--_................_.----_.........-...-.------------------_....--._-------_............-----------
Lighting controls 2 0/Lighting 0/0/
LED channel letter signs 2 0/Lighting 0/0/
LED message center signs 0/Lighting 0/0/
Unitary air conditioners and HVAC 0/0/heat pumps
Evaporative colers HVAC 0/0/
Water chiling packages 0/HVAC 0/0/
Programmable thermostats HVAC 0/0/
-------_.._.----.-_.----....._.--.--------.----------------...._~-~-_...-_.........._..--_.......__..__....__...................-_......~_........._..~-~.........
Occupancy-based HVAC 0/0/
PTHP/PTAC controls
Variable frequency dnves HVAC&0/0/Motor------_.._----_._....._........_......_-..........._..._........ ...........----_.-----...........---
Electronically commutated HVAC&0/0/motors Motor
Premium effciency motors Motor 0/0/
Solid door remgerators and 0/0/freezers
Cool roofs 0/0/
Plug load occupancy 0/0/sensors-_.....__.-...--.-.--.-------------------_._-..._....._.._......................_-~_..._......_.._-----_..__.._._---_.._--_.---
Transformers 0/0/0/
1 Deemed costs and savings based on project incorporate project specific vanables (e.g. deemed energy and demand savings as a
function of horsepower for premium effciency motors), while deemed costs and savings based on measure are only a functon of
the measure type (e.g. programmable thermostats)
2 Pre-purchase agreement only recommended on retrofit projects - not for new constrction or major renovation
In addition to the delivery recommendations summarized in Table ES-2, the following
suggestions are included to help improve the overall program:
ii 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancements tJNetlr
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
Executive Summary
.Incorporate prescriptive incentives for a variety of new lighting fixture upgrades
Clarify the distinction between retrofit, major renovation, and new constrction measures
Define retrofit as an elective project within existing square footage
Define major renovation as either a change in facility use tye or where existing
system wil not meet owner/tenant projected requirements within existing square
footage
Define new constrction as a project within new square footage
.
Treat major renovation lighting projects the same as new constrction
Create a separate incentive table for prescriptive new constrction lighting upgrades
Update the estimated incremental lighting fixtue costs for new constrction measures
Allow trade alles and customers the opportity to submit post-purchase applications for
new constrction lighting upgrades
Increase the incentive cap for custom projects from 35% of eligible project cost to 50%
of project cost
Incorporate the design team honorarium from the Energy FinAswer tariff in Utah
Modify the curent motor incentive delivery mechanism to allow for customer post-
purchase applications
Update the deemed incremental measure cost for premium effciency motors
Adjust the VFD incentive from $801HP to $651HP
Revise programmable thermostat eligibility requirements to reflect changes in the Energy
Star progrm
Update minimum efficiency requirements for HV AC equipment -c 65,000 Btu
Table ES-3 shows the savings and cost estimates from the original market characterization report
for Idaho for the curent Lighting, HV AC, and motor measures. Table ES-4 includes an
adjustment to the original estimates made by removing customers on rate schedule 10 from the
eligible customer base.
elNe 2006 FinAnswe~ Expres Market Characterization and Program Enhancements iii
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Table ES-3. Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Net Customer Net Annual Net Peak
Year Incentives Incremental.Cost Energy Savings Demand Savings
(kWh)(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,632 $1,794 9,369 2
Year 2 $2,601 $2,829 14,762 3
HVAC
Year 1 $1,974 $2,785 1,134 3
Year 2 $4,066 $5,737 2,336 6
Lighting
Year 1 $ 28,314 $103,739 232,079 42
Year 2 $56,441 $ 206,796 462,631 84
Total
Year 1 $ 31,920 $ 108,318 242,582 47
Year 2 $ 63,108 $ 215,362 479,729 93
Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table ES-4. Schedule 10 Adjusted Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Net Customer Net Annual Net Peak
Year Incentives Incremental Cost Energy Savings Demand Savings
(kWh)(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,086 $1,194 6,236 1
Year 2 $1,731 $1,883 9,826 2
HVAC
Year 1 $1.314 $1,854 755 2
Year 2 $2,706 $3.819 1,555 4
Lighting
Year 1 $18,847 $69,052 154,480 28
Year 2 $37,569 $137,651 307,943 56
Total
Year 1 $21,247 $72,100 161,471 31
Year 2 $42,007 $143,353 319,324 62
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table ES-5 on the following page summarizes the estimated incremental costs and savings
associated with the curent recommended changes and modifications to the FinAswer Express
program. Incremental utility administrative costs presented in Table ES-5 have been estimated
assuming a rate of $0.06 per new kWhyr of customer energy savings. Cost estimates do not
include initial design costs to incorporate these changes of approximately $2,500 and
incremental program evaluation (estimated at $5,000 /yr) or marketing expenses (estimated at
$1,500/yr). Estimated measure lifetimes for all measures identified in Table ES~5 are
iv 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Markel Characterization and Proram Enhancements tlNfnT
.
.
.
Executive Summary
approximately 15 years, with the exception of the plug load occupancy sensors, which have an
estimated measure lifetime of 8 years (PG&E 2003).
Table ES-5. Estimated Incremental Costs and Savings from Recommended Program Modifications1
Net Net Annual Net Peak
Measure/Administrative Incentives Total Utilty Customer Energy DemandCostsCosts 2 IncrementalYear($lyr)($lyr)($/yr)Costs 3
Savings Savings
($!yr)(kWh/yr)4 (kW)4
LED Channel Letter Signs
Year 1 $51 $68 $119 $441 851 0.2
Year 2 $82 $108 $190 $705 1,362 0.3
Year 3 $102 $135 $237 $881 1,703 0.4
Occupancy-Based PTACIPTHP Controls
Year 1 $450 $875 $1,325 $4,800 7,499 1.6
Year 2 $720 $1,400 $2,120 $7,680 11,999 2.6
Year 3 $900 $1,750 $2,650 $9,600 14,999 3.3
ECMs
Year 1 $606 $563 $1,169 $1,087 10,106 1.2
Year 2 $970 $901 $1,871 $1,740 16,170 1.8
Year 3 $1,213 $1,126 $2,339 $2,174 20,212 2.3
Motors (Incremental from Enhanced Delivery Mechanism)
Year 1 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 2 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 3 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
Year 1 $525 $608 $1,133 $1,192 8,754 1.0
Year 2 $840 $972 $1,812 $1,908 14,007 1.6
Year 3 $1,051 $1,215 $2,266 $2,385 17,509 2.0
Cool Roofs
Year 1 $157 $726 $883 $2,439 2,616 1.6
Year 2 $251 $1,161 $1,412 $3,902 4,186 2.6
Year 3 $314 $1,452 $1,766 $4,878 5,232 3.2
Plug Load Occupancy Sensors
Year 1 $119 $240 $359 $1,037 1,976 0.0
Year 2 $190 $384 $574 $1,659 3,161 0.0
Year 3 $237 $480 $717 $2,074 3,952 0.0
Total
Year 1 $2,145 $4,379 $6,525 $18,264 35755 6.6
Year 2 $3,290 $6,227 $9,517 $24,862 54837 10.0
Year 3 $4,053 $7,458 $11,512 $29,260 67558 12.2
1 Estimates are for a full year program period.
2 Utility costs include administration and incenties, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs.
3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incetives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflec net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-gross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
ttiv 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements v
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Table ES-6 summarizes the total estimated costs and savings associated with the FinAswer
Express program for a three-year period following the incorporation of the recommended
changes and modifications provided in this report.
Table ES-6. Estimated Total Costs and Savings for Modified FinAnswer Express Program1
Net
Net Annual Net Peak
Measure/Administrative Incentives Total Utilty Customer Energy DemandCostsCosts 2 IncrementalYear($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)Costs 3
Savings Savings
($lvr)(kWh/yr)4 (kW)
4
Lighting Measures
Year 1 $17,691 $37,637 $55,328 $138,091 308,795 56.11
Year 2 $17,722 $37,677 $55,399 $138,356 309,306 56.22
Year 3 $17,742 $37,704 $55,446 $138,532 309,646 56.30
Non-Lighting Measures
Year 1 $23,055 $8,750 $31,805 $23,525 46,285 12.39
Year 2 $24,169 $10,557 $34,726 $29,859 64,856 15.63
Year 3 $24,912 $11,761 $36,673 $34,081 77,236 17.79
Total
Year 1 $40,746 $46,386 $87,133 $161,617 355.080 68.50
Year 2 $41,891 $48,234 $90,125 $168,214 374,161 71.86
Year 3 $42,654 $49,465 $92,120 $172,613 386,883 74.10
1 Estimates are for a full year program period.
~ Utilty costs include administration and incentives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs.3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incentives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflec net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-ross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
vi 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characerization and Program Enhancements f.Nenr
.
.
.
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW
In June of 2006, PacifiCorp retained Nexant, Inc. (Nexant) to provide assistance with evaluating
the next phase of program improvements for the FinAnswer~ Express and Energy FinAswer~
energy efficiency programs. The objective of these improvements is to increase cost-effective
electrc savings and continue to improve new constrction participation levels. Consistency of
program delivery across the service territories, except where justified, is also a consideration to
simplify implementation and reduce administrative costs. PacifiCorp curently offers Finswer
Express in their Idaho, Uta and Washington service territories, while Energy FinAswer is
curently available in Utah and Washington. PacifiCorp expects to file both programs in
California in 2007.
FinAnswer Express is a streamlined version ofPacifiCorp's Energy FinAnswer program,
providing prescriptive cash incentives for common energy efficiency measures currently
including lighting, premium effciency motors, and high-effciency HV AC equipment.
FinAwer Express targets strightforward equipment upgrade projects or projects when
customers do not need the additional technical services provided under the Energy FinAnswer
program. Customers receive incentives directly using a post-purchase delivery model, although
in certain cases where additional information regarding baseline equipment is necessar, a pre-
purchase agreement is required. Reported costs and savings vary between actual, deemed based
on project specific variables (e.g. deemed energy and demand savings as a fuction of
horsepower for premium effciency motors), or deemed simply on the measure type. Table 1-1
summarizes the curent FinAswer Express program.
Table 1.1. Existing FinAnswer Express Measure Summary
Pre-Trade Reported Costs Reported Savings
Measure Purchase Ally Deemed Deemed Deemed DeemedAgreementNetworkActualbased on based on Simplified based on based on
Required project measure Analysis project measure
Lighting 0/Lighting 0/0/
Lighting contrls 0/Lighting 0/~--0/
Unitary air conditioners and HVAC 0/0/heat pumps
Evaporative colers HVAC 0/0/
Programmable thermostats HVAC 0/0/
VFDs HVACI 0/0/
Motor
Motors Motor 0/0/
I.1Ne 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancments 1-1
.
.
.
Introduction Section 1
This report presents the results of the FinAswer Express analysis conducted for the Idaho
service terrtory. Specifically, this effort reviewed the seven (7) existing measures included in
the program shown in Table 1-1 to confirm the appropriateness and update as necessary curent
incentive levels, costs, savings, and measure delivery mechanisms. In addition, Nexant reviewed
nine (9) new measures for possible inclusion into the prescriptive delivery component of the
program based on the criteria that they are market ready technologies expected to result in cost
effective, justifiable savings levels.
1.2 APPROACH TO WORK
Analysis activities utilzed a systematic approach to evaluate each identified energy efficiency
measure. The approach focused on using existing data resources with limited primary data
collection efforts. Figue I-Ion page 1-3 outlines the general methodology. A brief description
of each key activity follows:
· Measure/Technology Review. Initial analysis efforts for each measure consisted of a
review of existing data sources to compile cost and savings data. Each measure
investigated made use ofa core set of resources, listed below in Table 1-2. For certain
technologies, additional resources provided supplemental measure information. These
resources are noted in the individual measure wrte-ups provided in Section 2 of this
report. Section 5 provides a complete list of all resources.
Table 1.2. Key Informational Resources
Core Resources Resource
Abbreviation
Ecotope 2003
PG&E2003
Stellar Processes 2006
Xcel Energ 2006
Quantec 2005
DEER
KEMA2006
CEE
Energy Star
RTF
NPCC 2005
-- -
2003 Energy Effciency and Conservation Measure Resource Assessment
2004 - 2005 Express Effciency program fiing
2006 Energy Effciency and Conservation Measure Resource Assessment
2007-2009 Triennial Plan MN Natural Gas and Electric CIP
Assessment of Technical and Achievable Demand Side Resource Potentials
California Database of Energy Effciency Resources
Colorado DSM Market Potential Assessment
Consortium for Energy Effciency
Energy Star
Regional Technical Forum
The Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan
· Utility DSM Program Review. Nexant conducted a review of existing energy efficiency
programs to identify prescriptive incentive programs that covered measures investigated
as part of this work. These efforts focused on program offerings from major utilities and
energy effciency organizations with service territories close to PacifiCorp (summarized
in Table 1-3). Included in the analysis are additional prescriptive programs familiar to
Nexant or identified though other review activities. These resources are noted in the
individual measure write-ups provided in Section 2 of this report.
1-2 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements t'!fQnT
.
.
.
Section 1 Introduction
Done
Figure 1.1. Overview of Analysis Approach
tJ..nr 1-32006 FinAnswe Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Introduction Section 1
Table.1-3. Energy Efficiency Programs Reviewed for Prescriptive Incentives
Entity Energy Efficiency Web Site
Avista www.avistautílities.com/saving/com incentives.asp
ETO ww.energytrust.ora!businesslindex.html
Idaho Power ww.idahopower.com/energycenter/energyeffciencylY ourBusiness/default.htm
PG&E ww.pge.comlbizlrebates/
PSE ww.pse.com/solutions/ForBusiness EffciencyProqrams.aspx
Xcel Energy ww.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDAlO,3080,1-1-3 4530 8437-7323-2 366 583-0,OO.html
· Code Review. To assess the appropriateness of curent baseline assumptions for existing
measures and to help establish baselines for potential new prescriptive measures, analysis
efforts included a review of applicable code requirements. Review efforts focused on
both state and federal codes. Review activities also included curent code requirements
and planned futue code updates where available. In Idaho, the 2003 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) is the current code for non-residential facilties. For
comparative puroses only, information on IECC 2006 is also presented in this report.
· Vendor Identification and Input. Equipment manufactuers, distrbutors and dealers of
investigated measures were contacted informally to confirm measure cost and savings
data collected as part of the above activities. In some cases, vendors also provided input
on local activity and the expected market response to prescriptive incentives for high-
effciency measures. Section 2 of this report lists three vendors for each technology in the
individual measure wrte-ups.
· Identifcation of Candidate Prescriptive Measures. N exant evaluated each of the nine
(9) new candidate technologies to identify those that met the established prescriptive
measure criteria. These measures were then more fully analyzed as described in the
remaining steps outlined below. For measures not recommended for prescriptive
incentives at this time, Nexant assessed whether a simplified analysis procedure was
available or could be readily prepared to help expedite the review activities associated
with processing the measure under the custom path in FinAswer Express or Energy
FinAnswer.
· Establish Baseline. Baseline effciencies were established for new potential prescriptive
measures. Existing federal or state code requirements, or those planned and expected to
be in effect by early 2007, were tyically used as the baseline value. For measures where
no code requirement existed, curent industr practices identified durng the evaluation
activities were used. For curent FinAnswer Express measures, this step consisted of
reviewing the appropriateness of curent baseline assumptions.
· Set Minimum Efficiency Requirements. Recommended minimum effciency levels for
potential new prescriptive measures were established based on findings from the
evaluation activities. In general, minimum efficiency requirements were set to match
curent market levels established by others such as the Consortium for Energy Efficiency
(CEE) or Energy Star to leverage existing market awareness. For curent FinAswer
1-4 206 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNe
.
.
.
Section 1 Introduction
Express measures, this step consisted of reviewing the appropriateness of curent
minimum effciency requirements.
Determine Deemed Unit Cost and Savings. Estimated incremental cost and savings
values were then determined for new prescriptive measures based on the proposed
minimum efficiency requirements and associated baselines. For curent FinAswer
Express measures, this step consisted of reviewing the appropriateness of current deemed
costs and savings values.
Define Incentive Delivery Mechanism. For potential new prescriptive measures, a
recommended incentive delivery mechanism was identified. To maintain consistency and
help minimize progrm administrative costs, a post-purchase application and incentive
delivery process was the default approach. Specifically, the approach includes a flexible
post-purchase application process that allows customers to receive incentives directly,
but also allows for reassignment of incentives, providing vendors the opportity to
credit eligible incentive amounts to their customers at the time of purchase and then
receive reimbursement from PacifiCorp. For curent FinAnswer Express measures, this
step consisted of reviewing the appropriateness of the curent incentive delivery
mechanism.
· Identify Incentive LeveL. Proposed incentive levels for new prescriptive measures were
identified through an iterative process that considered the following factors:
.
.
Estimated incremental customer costs
Incentive levels offered by other utilties for similar measures
Feedback from vendors
The value of savings achieved by the measure
For curent FinAswer Express measures, this step consisted of reviewing the
appropriateness of curent incentive values.
· Estimate Program Level Impacts. For potential new prescriptive measures or when a
significant change in an existing prescriptive measure was recommended, estimates of
the incremental program savings and customer costs were prepared. N exant estimated the
measure-level participation rates from a variety of sources, including referenced DSM
market potential studies, progrm participation estimates filed by other utilties for
similar measures, and realized values from existing progrms.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The balance of this report presents results from the analysis approach outlined above.
Specifically:
· Section 2 contains a detailed sumary of the measure level analysis results
· Section 3 presents the estimated incremental savings and costs values associated with
changes recommended for curent and new prescriptive measures in the program
tt..nr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1-5
.
.
.
Introduction Section 1
· Section 4 summarizes the key recommendations from the analysis
· Section 5 includes a listing of references used to complete this evaluation
· Several appendices contain additional information and findings described in the main
body of the report
1-6 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNetJ
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
As described in the Approach to Work overview in Section 1, analysis efforts focused on curent
FinAswer Express measures and ten potential new prescriptive energy efficiency technologies.
Table 2-1 sumarizes the measures evaluated as part of this effort.
Table 2.1. Evaluated Electric Energy Efficiency Measures
Technology Current Potential New Report
Measure Measure Section
Lighting 1 .¡2.1
Lighting controls .¡2.2
LED channel letter signs .¡2.3
LED message center signs .¡2.4
1-..--.--..-...--..-..--....-.--.-..----..------.---..--..--------------..---..--..-~-_.._-------_.._--...-.._........_-----_...................._......_._.._._..._....~.._......................_--...._.__.._._..._..-..._---~.._..
Unitary air conditioners and heat pumps .¡2.5
Evaporative coolers .¡2.6
Water chilling packages .¡2.7
Prrammable thermostats .¡2.8
--_.._._---....._.---......._..-..-.---.-..----.-....---_.._..__.._-_..---_...._----_.._....--_.._--_._----_...._------_.._----_.._..-..._------_...._-_.._-_......._-_.._.._.._---........._----_..__.._.._---~_.._...
Occupancy-based PTHP/PTAC cotrols .¡2.9
Variable freuency drives .¡2.10
Electroically commutated motors .¡2.11
Premium effciency motors .¡2.12---------_...__......._...._.-.._._............_-----_......_-_......_----_..----_.._..__.......-...--------_..~_.._--_._--------.......-...._-1--......---_.._-_.
Solid door refrgerators and freezers .¡2.13
Cool roofs .¡2.14
Plug load occupancy sensors .¡2.15
Transformers .¡2.16
1 Review of existing prescriptive lighting measures also included the review of several new prescriptive categories
including T5HO fixtres, ceramic metal halide fixtures, T8 lamp upgrades, T8 high bay fixtures, and new pulse start
metal halide fixture sizes
The balance of this section presents detailed information on each of these measures.
I:Il 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Charaterization and Program Enhancements 2-1
.
.
.
Measure Inforation Secton 2
2.1 LIGHTING
Measure Description
Prescriptive lighting incentives are a matue component ofPacifiCorp's FinAswer Express
program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive incentive levels for a wide varety of standard
lighting fixtue upgrades. Retrofit incentives are not available to reduce a project's simple
payback below one year. Incentives equal to $0.08/kWh times the estimated annual energy
savings or 35% of the incremental customer cost, whichever is less, are also available for custom
retrofit lighting fixtue upgrades.
Prescriptive incentives are also available for a subset of eligible retrofit measures when installed
in new constrction opportnities, subject to the requirement that the total lighting power density
(LPD) beats curent code requirements by at least 10%. New constrction incentives are not
subject to percentage of cost or simple payback caps.
Measure/Technology Review
High-effciency lighting measures are the backbone of most utility energy effciency efforts. A
wide array of information is available in the market. As expected, each of the core resources
used as part of this evaluation contained at least some information on lighting measures, as is
summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 2.2. Available Lighting Measure Information Resources
Measure
Information Resource Notes
Available
Yes Ecotope 2003 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study--.---.-..-...---,...._--.-----------_....._..-.......--....--------_.._----_....--.-...._-_.._---_....__.._..__...._...-..-_.._-----_..-...........__..__.....-..--..--_.._.._.._.._-----_..._....----_....-....----..-----
Yes PG&E2003 Savings and costs for common lighting retrofits
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Proram level savings and cost estimates for high-effciency lighting
Yes Quantec, 2005 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs for common lighting retrofits.H..._..w.__~.._.__._._~~....__________.__._._...___........___..................___.._.._____... .-_.__..............__...__.............-.._-_..._._..................-..----........-.--...--.
Yes KEMA2006 Lighting savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes CEE High-Performance Commercial Lighting Systems Initiative, also includes a
high-level summary of 42 utility high-effciency commercial lighting prorams
Yes Energy Star Provides labeling for qualifyng CFL, traffc and exit signs
Yes RTF Savings and costs for common lighting retrofis
Yes NPCC2005 Savings and costs for common lighting retrofis
Utilty DSM Program Review
Energy and demand savings from high-effciency lighting measures continue to playa dominant
role in the delivery of non-residential DSM savings for utilities across the nation. Prescriptive
lighting incentives are currently available from each of the six primary utilities reviewed,
although in the case ofIdaho Power, they are only available for new constrction. Table 2-3
summarzes these programs.
2.2 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancements tJNexnT
.
.
.
Setion 2 Measure Inforation
Table 2.3. Prescriptive Lighting Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Notes Reference
Available
Yes Avista See Table B-3 for prescriptive incentive levels Avista, 2006
Yes ETO See Table B-3 for prescriptive incentive levels ETO,2oo6
___.___M__................................_................._._.........__.................................__.__..............................._....__.___.........................._................_........................................----_...._----_..__.._--------_..._-_...---_........_.._--------------_.._-_..._.__._......_-_............__.._-
Yes PSE See Table B-3 for prescriptive incentive levels PSE,2006
Incentives only available for new construction projects where
Yes Idaho Power LPD is reduced below 2003 IEee by 10% or more at $0.05 to Idaho Power, 2006
.........$0.121sqft .._---_.._.._--_.._---------_..__.._----_.._.._._-_..-...-----------_.._...._---_...._--_.._--------_._-------._..._..__..._-----........._...............__..._................................-......__.-.................................._.......................
Yes Xcel Energy See Table B-3 for prescriptive incentive levels Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes PG&E See Table B-3 for prescriptive incentive levels PG&E,2oo6
Yes BPA See Table B-3 for prescriptive incentive levels BPA,2006
Code Review
IECC 2003 specifies maximum lighting power densities by building or area type. These
requirements apply to all new constrction projects and alterations of existing spaces when 50%
or more of the lighting fixtues are replaced. For ilustrative puroses, Table 505.5.2 ofIECC
2006 provides updated maximum lighting power densities by building area type. Table 2-4
compares these two LPD standards, although no changes in curent values are recommended at
this time.
tlNenT 2006 FinAnswer4 Expres Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-3
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2-4.IECC 2003 and IECC 2006 Maximum Allowable Lighting
Power Densities (W/sqft)
Business Type IECC 20031 IECC 2006 2 % Change
Automotiye Facilty 1.5 0.9 40%
Convention Center 1.4 1.2 14%
Courthouse 1.4 1.2 14%
Dining: Bar Lounge! Leisure 1.5 1.3 13%
Dining: Cafeteria! Fast Foo 1.8 1.4 22%
Dining: Family 1.9 1.6 16%
Dormitory 1.5 1.0 33%
Exercise Center 1.4 1.0 29%
Gymnasium 1.7 1.1 35%
Hospital! Healthcare 1.6 1.2 25%
Hotel 1.7 1.0 41%
Library 1.5 1.3 13%
Manufacturing Facilty 2.2 1.3 41%
Motel 2.0 1.0 50%
Motion Picture Theater 1.6 1.2 25%
Multi-Family 1.0 0.7 30%
Museum 1.6 1.1 31%
Ofce 1.3 1.0 23%
Parking Garage 0.3 0.3 0%
Penitentiary 1.2 1.0 17%
Performing Ars Theater 1.5 1.6 -7%
PolicelFire Station 1.3 1.0 23%
Post Offce 1.6 1.1 31%,
Religious Building 2.2 1.3 41%
Retail 1.9 1.5 21%
School! University 1.5 1.2 20%
Sports Arena 1.5 1.1 27%
Town Hall 1.4 1.1 21%
Transportation 1.2 1.0 17%
Warehouse 1.2 0.8 33%
Workshop 1.7 1.4 18%
1 IECC 2003 LPDs listed in Table 805.5.2 are higher than those listed here, but section 801.2
allows for compliance with LPDs in ASHRAE 90.1-2001, which are the values listed.
2 IECC 2006 LPDs are expected to become effective in January of 2007.
As can be seen from Table 2-4, maximum allowable LPD values decrease for a majority of
business tyes. The average percentage decrease across all business tyes is 24%. The average
percentage decrease for offce, warehouse, and retail (three common building tyes in the curent
program) is 26%.
2-4 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tlN8QI
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's Finnswer Express program is currently supported by approximately 6 lighting
equipment contractors and distrbutors through the Lighting Energy Effciency Allance. A
curent listing, including complete contact information, of these alles is available though the
program's web site.
A small subset of the most active alles in PacifiCorp' s service terrtory was contacted as par of
this effort to help update measure cost information. Specifically, four alles were contacted, and
three responded with costing information. Details on cost data received through this process are
presented below under the Unit Measure Cost and Savings heading for lighting measures.
Additional information including the surey instrment and specific vendor responses is
provided in Appendix A.
Prescriptive Recommendation
Lighting is curently a prescriptive measure under the FinAnswer Express progrm. Table 2-5
lists new prescriptive lighting measures recommended for retrofit projects. Table E-l in
Appendix E contains a comprehensive incentive table incorporating other minor adjustments in
incentive categories. Nexant also recommends that the 35% ofEEM cost cap on all custom
projects submitted under FinAswer Express be increased to 50% to encourage more
comprehensive projects.
Table 2.5. Recommended Additional Retrofit Prescriptive Lighting Measures
Category Replace With Retrofit
Incentive
T8 Fluorescent 32W 4' T8 lamp ~ 30W 4' T8 lamp $0.50Lamp Upgrade 1
Fluorescent Fixture
Upgrade to
Standard T8
Fixtures (Standard
T81ampsand 8' - I or 2 TI2 lamp(s) + MB(s)4' - 2, 3 or 4 T8 lamps + EB $10
elecronic ballasts
with ballast factor
(BF)~0.88J
T5 Fluorescent ~50 W MH, MV or HPS 3 T5HO lamps (noinal 4') + EB (high bay)$70
Fixture Upgrae 4' 4 T121amps + MB(s)2 T5 lamps (nominal 4') + EB (intenor)$30
4' 4 T12 lamps + MB(s)2 T5 HO lamps (nominal 4') + EB (interior)$20
High Intensity incand. or tungsten S100 W Ceramic Metal Halide $25
Discarges (HID)~400W MH, MV or HPS S320 W Ceramic Metal Halide $100Upgrades
~750W MH, MV, or HPS ~400 W Ceramic Metal Halide $120
~1000W MH, MV or HPS g50W Pulse Start Metal Halide $100
?,750 W MH, MVor HPS 4'. 8 lamp T8 + EB(s) (High Bay)$100
1 Incentives for this measure may not be combined with other fluorescent fixture incentives. Incentives for this measure will only be
paid once per facility.
~..Mi 200 FinAswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-5
.
.
.
Measure Information Secion 2
Measure Baseline
Based upon work completed for other utilities since the mid 1990's, Nexant prepared a
comprehensive listing of standard fixture wattages for over 1,050 different fixtues (the Standard
Fixtue Wattage Table) for PacifiCorp as part of this effort. This resource includes several key
parameters for most fixtues, including:
· Unique fixtue code
· Lamp designation
· Fixtue description
· Ballast information
· Lamps/fixtue
· Watts/lamp
· Watts/fixtue (subject to federal EPAct standards)
· Watt/fixture (actual)
· Source
· Date added/updated
· Notes
Nexant updated the table to include all lighting fixtues curently covered under the prescriptive
incentive path of the FinAswer Express. Appendix C contains a copy of the fixtue code legend.
Due to its size, the actual table is provided in electronic format rather than hardcopy-
For new constrction lighting projects, Nexant recommends that the baseline for new
constrction and major renovation projects be adjusted to the updated LPD values shown in
Table 2-4. Existing tariff language wil accommodate this update without a formal tariff revision
when it occurs. An analysis of recent new constrction projects submitted by members of the
Lighting Energy Effciency Allance suggests that projects should continue to be able to meet the
10% better than code requirement even with the lower LPD allowances.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
Other than the new fixtues identified in Table 2-5, no changes in the minimum effciency
requirements are suggested at this time. Input wattages for all qualifying fixtues are included in
the Standard Fixtue Wattage Table.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Savings estimates for prescriptive measures may be updated slightly based on fixture wattges
provided in the Standard Fixtue Wattage Table. In general, where differences between curent
deemed fixtue wattages were identified, they were minor.
2-6 2006 FinAnswer4 Express Market Characterization and Proram Enhancements tfNeanr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Inforation
To improve the process for the calculation of demand reduction potential for lighting projects for
estimating project paybacks and incentives versus realized customer peak demand savings,
coincident peak demand factors relating the name plate demand reduction of installed lighting
measures to their estimated contrbution toward customer biled demand costs have been
established. These results were based on an Xcel Energy study of lighting system operating
hours for several facility tyes (Barakat & Chamberlin 1994). Table 2-6 sumarizes these
values.
Table 2.6. Lighting Customer Coincident Peak Demand Factors
by Major Business Type
Building
Type
Peak Peak Lighting CoincidentDescription Hour Hour Demand Notes
Start Stop FactorOfce buildings 11 13 78%Retail facilties 16 18 94%..__..._.,_......,-------_._--_._-_._............__._.._-_........_--_...._...............-...._.._-~--_......-.-...._..._..........._......._........_-Warehouse facilties 12 14 96%
Ofce
Retail
Warehouse
Major Healthcare Hospitals and in-patient
health clinics 12 14 84%
Any facilty that operates
24 Hour Facilities 24 hoursday or has 10 16high occpancy during
peak hours
K-12 Schls Primary education 10 12facilties
Colleges & Universities Secondary education 13 15facilties.
Conference facilties
Assembly and public gathering 12 14
spaces
Hotel Lodging facilities 12 14
94%
73%Weighted summer and
non-summer periods.
Weighted summer and
non-summer periods.71%
89%
51%
To facilitate integrtion into PacifiCorp's lighting tool, Table 2-7 provides a suggested mapping
of these coincident demand lighting factors to business tye listings contained in æcc 2003.
Where a facilty tye encompasses more than one of the categories listed in Table 2-7, Nexant
recommends that the diversity factor be weighted by square footage.
t'1l 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Prom Enhancements 2-7
.Measure Information Section 2
Table 2-7. Lighting Customer Coincident Peak Demand Factors
by IECC 2003 Business Type
.
Business Type Lighting Coincident
Demand Factor
Automotive Facilty 94%
Convention Center 89%
Courtouse 78%
Dining: Bar Lounge / Leisure 94%
Dining: Cafeteria / Fast Foo 94%
Dining: Family 94%
Dormitory 51%
Exercise Center 94%
Gymnasium 89%
Hospital/ Healthcare 84%
Hotel 51%
Library 89%
Manufacturing Facilty 96%
Motel 51%
Motion Picture Theater 78%
Multi-Family 78%
Museum 89%
Ofce 78%
Parking Garage 96%
Penitentiary 94%
Performing Arts Theater 78%
Police/Fire Station 94%
Post Offce 94%
Religious Building 89%
Retail 94%
School/ University 71%
Sports Arena 89%
Town Hall 78%
Transportation 78%
Warehouse 96%
Workshop 94%
Other 78%
.
Lighting measure review efforts also sought to identify a consistent, single source of information
on lighting measure costs. While most of the sources listed in Table 2-2 and elsewhere did
contain cost data on lighting measures, none proved to be the desired central resource. Reasons
for this included:
· Most sources only covered a small subset of eligible prescriptive fixtues
· Some data were more than three years old
2-8 2006 FinAnswer' Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNeDnT
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
· Cost data were often provided in a $/sqft rather than a $/fixtue metrc
· Costs for similar fixtues vared greatly from one source to another
· Sources of cost information were not consistently documented, which raised concerns
about the robustness of the datasets used to develop the costs and the diffculty of
updating costs in the futue
Detailed lighting cost data submitted to PacifiCorp by past program participants addressed these
limitations. Specifically, all completed lighting projects submitted by PacifiCorp's Lighting
Trade Alles from October of 2005 through June of 2006 were compiled and analyzed. Table B -
1 in Appendix B contains a listing of every lighting fixtue installed durng this time, the number
of fixtues, and the corresponding average material, labor and total costs.
As curent incentive caps and cost reporting metrcs for retrofit lighting measures are based on
actual customer costs, cost information presented in Table B-1 wil be useful in helping to
identify, and adjust if necessar, unexpected retrofit measure costs submitted on futue projects.
Another key aspect of the cost review efforts for lighting measures focused on the curent
deemed incremental material costs for new constrction prescriptive measures. Average material
costs for key retrofit measures presented in Table B-1 were used as part of this process. Key
incremental material costs solicited from the most active members of the Lighting Energy
Effciency Allance augmented this information. Table 2-8 summarizes the results of this
feedback. Appendix A contains the individual responses from vendors who replied to the surey.
Table 2.8. Incremental Lighting Measure Material Costs from Vendor Surveys
Baseline Unit Proposed Unit
Average
Incremental
Cost
($/unit)
$29.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$4.00
$5.00
$20.00
$44.00
MH400
1 LF32T8Elec
2LF32T8Elec
3LF32T8Elec
4LF32T8Elec
Standard T8 Ballast (.88)
T8F32 Lamp
T8F32 Ballast
T8F32 Fixture
MHPS320
Prem H8 3100 lumo:O.8 BF
Prem 2 T8 3100 lumo:O.8 BF
Prem 3 T8 3100 lumoO.8 BF
Prem 4 T8 3100 lumo:O.8 BF
Premium T8 Ballast (.8)
T5HOLamp
T5HO Ballast
T5HO Fixture
Informal discussions were also held with key vendors to help establish the most common
baseline fixtue for qualifying prescriptive measures in new constrction projects. Based on
these responses and the cost data presented in Table B-1 and Table 2-8, updated estimates of
incremental material cost for prescriptive new constrction lighting measures were prepared.
Table B-2 in Appendix B contains the details of this analysis.
øNetlnr 2006 FinAnswer4 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-9
Measure Information Section 2.
Incentive Levels
Based on the updated estimates of incremental material costs for prescriptive new constrction
measures as described above, revised measure incentive levels were also prepared. These
recommended values are presented in Table E - 2 in Appendix E.
A comprehensive review of curent incentive levels for prescriptive retrofit lighting measures
was also completed. Curent incentive levels were compared to incentives provided by other
prescriptive lighting incentive programs noted in Table 2-3. In addition, a varety of economic
metrics were reviewed. Table 2-9 lists the incentive parameters that were reviewed and the
criteria by which an incentive level was flagged for possible modification.
Table 2.9. Retrofit Lighting Incentive Review Parameters
Parameter Criteria for Potential
Reduction in Incentive
Highest of reviewed values
::$0.25
::$900
::67%
::10 yrs
Criteria for Potential
Increase in Incentive
Lowest of reviewed values
.:$0.015
.:$200
.:20%
.:1yr
Utilty incentive comparison
IncentivelkWh-yr
Incentive/kW
Incentive % of customer cost
Simple payback with incentives
. Curent incentive levels that met criteria for a potential increase in incentives were assigned a
value of 1 for each parameter. Correspondingly, current incentive levels that met criteria for a
potential decrease in incentives were assigned a value of -1. Any individual measlte where the
absolute sum of the values was equal to or greater than three was individually reviewed. Table
2-10 lists the individual measures that were identified for fuher review.
Table 2.10. Retrofit Lighting Incentives Flagged for Review
Baseline Retrofit Fixture Screening
Total
3
3
Incandescent300W
2LF40T12Mag
CFL30W/screw-in
2LF32T8Elec
As can be seen in Table 2-10, one screw-in CFL measure was flagged for potential incentive
increase. This was due to its very attactive cost per unit savings. However, given the trends in
the market to remove incentives for CFL upgrades, and discussions regarding the potential
sunset of incentives for CFLs in Idaho, increasing this incentive is not recommended.
.
Aa standard 2-lamp T8 upgrade was also flagged for potential incentive increase due to the low
percentage of customer cost covered by the incentive and long payback period. However, a
review of the current $5/fixtue incentive level in comparison to other standard and premium T8
incentives does not lend much room for changes without affecting the optics of other incentive
categories.
2-10 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements c:Neønr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table B-3 in Appendix B contains a complete summar of the retrofit incentives review data.
Based on conversations with PacifiCorp's project managers and Lighting Trade Ally
Coordinator, a few minor adjustments to retrofit incentive levels are suggested. These changes
are reflected in Table E-l in Appendix E.
Delivery Mechanism
The curent prescriptive lighting incentive components of the FinAswer Express program are
working well. The following minor modifications are suggested to help clarfy outstading
issues and simplify the process fuher:
· Clarify the distinction between retrofit, major renovation, and new constrction measures
Define retrofit as an elective project within existing square footage
Define major renovation as either a change in facility use type or where existing
system wil not meet owner/tenant projected requirements within existing square
footage
Define new constrction as a project within new square footage
· Treat major renovation projects the same as new constrction
· Create a new incentive table for new constrction/major renovation projects
· Allow new constrction project documentation to be submitted after installation of
measures as a pre-installation inspection is not necessary for new constrction projects
· Allow customers to submit custom measures for new constrction and major renovation
projects if they can adequately demonstrate the energy savings associated with the
affected measures versus a code compliant alternative design
",._nr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-11
.
.
.
Measure Inforation Section 2
2.2 LIGHTING CONTROLS
Measure Description
There are several vareties of automatic lighting controls, including wall or ceiling mounted
occupancy sensors (including bi-Ievel controls), integral occupancy sensors (including bi-Ievel
controls), photocells, and time clocks. Prescriptive incentives for these tyes of automatic
lighting control devices, where not required by code, are curently available under the
FinAswer Express program. Cost, savings, and incentive levels were reviewed for lighting
control measures to confirm the appropriateness of curent values.
Measure/Technology Review
Each ofthe primary resources provided data for lighting controls; however, only three of the
reports provided energy, demand, and cost savings. Additional costs and savings data was
obtained from NYSERDA's deemed savings and cost database (Nexant, 2005). Wall and ceilng
occupancy sensors are the most common lighting controls, followed by photocells and time
clocks. Typical energy savings for these controls are 20% over lights not equipped with
occupancy sensors. The values from these studies for incremental costs and savings are given in
Table 2-11 below.
2.12 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNeønr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.11. Review of Measure Information
Measure Energy Demand Incremental
Information Resource Lighting Control Type Savings1 Savings1 Cost 2
Available (kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($Iunit)
Yes Ecotope 2003
Wall occupancy sensor 266 0.111 $56.00
Ceilng occupancy sensor 789 0.381 $141.00YesPG&E 2003 Photocell 106 0 $10.00
Time clock 474 0 $100.001-.----------------------------------------------------------------------._.----._...---------.-..---------------..--------..............-..---
Yes Stellar Processes 2006
Yes Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec, 2005
Yes DEER Wall ocupancy sensor, 3 Lamps 214 0.176 $7728
Occupancy sensor, 4 Lamps 195 0.091 $27.65YesKEMA2006Photocell (exterior)1,812 0.579 $108.00
Yes CEE
Yes Energy Star--------_.._-_.__..._-_.......-_......_.........._._.._-_..._-_.._...._--_.._._-_._--_.._.-....--...-_..-.-..._-----_.._.......-.------------------_.._._.......-....-.._---_..__.--_._.-.------------------_._-----_."_.............---
Yes RTF
Yes NPCC2005
HID occupancy sensor 333 0.192 $150.00
Time cloc 126 0.073 $10.50
Yes Nexant, 2005 Integrated occupancy sensor 353 0.055 $137.00
Occupancy sensor 152 0.087 $35.00
Occupancy sensor (bi-Ievel contrl)51 0.029 $60.00
Yes CEC, 2005 Occupancy sensor (bi-Ievel contrl 441 0.047 $127with dimmable ballast)
1 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
2 Customer costs reflect gross incremental measure cot unless otherwise noted
Utiity DSM Program Review
Prescriptive lighting control incentives are curently available from each of the six primar
utilities reviewed. Table 2-12 summarzes these programs.
tlNe 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2.13
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2.12. Prescriptive Lighting Control Measure Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Utilty Notes Reference
$20 for sensors controllng c:200 watts, $40 for sensors
controlling;; 200 watt
Yes ETO $20 per wall mount sensor, $50 per ceilng mount sensor ETO, 2006
..-.-----------....------...........-........-...-.-----..--....--------------------..---$25Twaic,¡:..eel'.ñg-mõü"ieëfsëñSÕrs-..---...----......----.--...------.---..-----.--.---------..---..----..---..---..--..-_..-..------.Yes Idaho Power Buildina must be c:=5,000 sa ft; new construction only Idaho Power, 2006
$16.50 per wall box
$20 per wall sensor contrllng c: 500 watts
$44 per wall sensor controlling c: 500 watts
$20 per integrated high bay sensor
$25 per bi-level fixture
$30 for each Occupancy Sensor controllng 100-200 watts of
lighting
$60 for each Occpancy Sensor controllng over 200 watt of
lighting
$30 for each Timer Switch controllng 100-200 watts of lighting.
$60 for each Timer Switch controllng over 200 watts of lighting.........M..............._...--__.........._..._..__......_....................................__.__.............__.........................................----........---.-....-----....................--.....................-..-...-----..-...--................
$12 per wall monted sensor or photocell
$36 per ceilng mounted sensor
Yes Avista, 2006Avista
Yes PG&E PG&E,2oo6
Yes PSE PSE,2006
Yes Xcel Energy Xcel,2006
Code Review
Section 805.2 of IECC 2003 specifies when light reduction and automatic controls are required
for new constrction and affected retrofit projects. Lighting control information in IECC 2006 is
contained in section 505.2. There are no significant changes from IECC 2003 to IECC 2006 for
lighting control code requirements.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's FinAnswer Express program is curently supported by approximately 6 lighting
equipment contractors and distrbutors though the Lighting Energy Efficiency Allance. A
curent listing, including complete contact information, of these allies is available through the
program's web site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for lighting control measures not required by code
continued to be offered under the FinAswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
See the Measure Baseline section under general lighting measures in Section 2.1 for a discussion
of updated lighting fixtue wattages.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
See the Minimum Effciency Requirements section under general lighting measures in Section
2.2.
2-14 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characerization and Program Enhancements tlNe
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Based on a review of lighting project costs submitted under the FinAnswer Express program
though the Lighting Energy Effciency Allance from October 2005 through June 2006 and the
cost information summarized above in Table 2-11, the estimated gross incremental customer cost
for qualifying lighting control measures has increased from $50/unit to $58/unit.
Incentive Levels
No changes in curent retrofit lighting control measure incentive levels are recommended at this
time.
Delivery Mechanism
IfPacifiCorp's curent lighting project inspection process does not curently include a step to
confirm that controls are not required by code, Nexant recommends incorporating this change.
For projects not identified for inspection, PacifiCorp's project managers and Trade Ally
Coordinator should complete due-dilgence review activities to identify ineligible projects. No
other specific changes in the curent prescriptive incentive delivery mechanism, aside from the
overall lighting recommendations provided in Section 2.1, are recommended for lighting control
measures.
t'..Ne 2006 FinAnswe~ Expres Market Characterization and. Program Enhancements 2-15
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
2.3 LED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNS
Measure Description
Channel letter signs most commonly iluminate signs used to display store names. Their
constrction tyically consists of sheet metal sides with a colored plastic lens backlit by a single
or double strip of neon lamps. LED channel letter signs use LEDs in lieu of the neon lamps or
other light sources to iluminate the sign. A variety of LED colors are available, but red is the
cheapest and curently dominates the market.
Measure/Technology Review
Ofthe primar set of data resources reviewed as part of this effort, only PG&E's 2004-2005
Express Efficiency work papers contained information on LED channel letter signs. Table 2-13
sumarzes this information
Table 2.13. LED Channel Letter Savings and Cost Information (PG&E, 2003)
Location Size
Annual Energy
Savings1
(kWh-yr/ln tt)
Replacement!
New Construction
Cost
($/In tt)0.010 $18 $120.020 $33 $24...._._...__n__......______...._._~_....................~._..._....__._............__......................____.._..............m0.005 $18 $120.010 $33 $24
Demand
Savings1
(kW/ln tt)
Retrofit
Cost
($/In tt)
Indoor .: 2 Feet high 43.8
Indoor ;: 2 Feet high 87.6I------.--~~~---------------------------------------------------------.--.-----Outdoor .: 2 Feet high 21.9
Outdoor ;: 2 Feet high 43.8
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-14 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2.14. LED Channel Letter Signs Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Notes Reference
Available
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO, 2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Indoor.: 2 feet high; $4/1inear foot
Yes PG&E Indoor;: 2 feet high; $6/linear foot PG&E,2006
Outdoo .: 2 feet high; $2Iinear foot
----~~.Outdoor;: 2 feet high; $3/1inear foot........._._..........._-........._.._-_.__....."'......_-...._....__...............
No PSE PSE,2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes BC Hydro Neon baseline; $6/1inear foot BC Hydro, 2006
Fluorescent baseline; $10/linear foot
2-16 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements t,MWtJ
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Infoation
Code Review
There are curently no federal or Idaho state code requirements for LED channel letter signs.
Maximum interior and exterior lighting power allowances indirectly address sign wattage
requirements in IECC 2003 and IECC 2006. In California, Title 24 identifies maximum wattges
for interior and exterior signs, but signs iluminated by either neon and LED light sources are
exempt from the requirements.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-15 contains contact information for three equipment manufacturers or vendors that sell
LED chanel letter signs in Idaho.
Table 2.15. LED Channel Letter Signs Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
Visigraph Corp.
Multi Media Inc.
Trans Lux
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
Based on the availability of prescriptive incentives from other utilities and appropriate deemed
cost and savings values, it is recommended that LED chanel letter signs be considered for
inclusion within the prescriptive delivery component of the FinAswer Express program.
Recommended changes to Table 1 of the Schedule 115 are shown below in Table 2-16.
Additional information on appropriate baseline, minimum efficiency, costs, savings, and
incentives for each size and application are provided below.
Table 2.16. Recommended LED Channel Letter Sign Measures 1
Retrofit New
Category Replace With Incentive Construction
Incentive
LED Lighting Indoor incandescent, neon, or LED channel letter signage ~ 2ft $4l1inear foot $4/1near footfluorescent signage high
---~--LED channel letter signage ;, 2f $6l1near foot $6Ilinear foothigh
Outdoor incandescent, neon, or LED channel letter signage ~ 2ft $2Iinear foot $2Iinear footfluorescent signage high
LED channel letter signage ;, 2ft $3l1inear foot $3Iinear foothigh
1 To determine the length of LED channel letter signs, measure the length of individual letter at the centerline and add the
individual values; do not measure the distance between letters.
Measure Baseline
Nexant has developed a comprehensive listing of standard fixture wattages for over 1,050
different fixtues (the Standard Fixtue Wattge Table) as par of this effort. Appendix C
contains a copy of the fixture code legend. Due to its size, the actual table is provided in
~JM 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-17
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
electronic format rather than hardcopy. The table includes both neon and LED channel letter sign
fixture codes and wattages for incorporation into PacifiCorp's lighting tool to be used as baseline
values.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
LED channel letter fixtues must be installed in compliance with the requirements outlined in
Table 2-16. Curent code requirements in Idaho and indications of possible futue changes as
ilustrated in California's Title 24 requirements provide no reason to exclude this measure from
new construction projects at this time.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Estimated customer incremental costs are equal to those shown above in Table 2-13. Savings
estimates for retrofit or replacement LED channel letter fixtue installations can be estimated
based on fixtue wattages provided in the Standard Fixture Wattge Table in Appendix C.
Savings estimates for new constrction LED channel letter fixtue installations can be estimated
from the demand savings values shown in Table 2-13 times the estimated anual operational
hours for the affected project space entered in the existing lighting project tool.
Incentive Levels
Recommended incentive levels are the same as the curent PG&E offering, and are shown in
Table 2-16.
Delivery Mechanism
LED channel letter sign incentives should be incorporated into the curent prescriptive lighting
delivery mechanism outlined in Schedule 115 as outlned above. Table 2-17 includes a sumary
of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2.17. LED Channel Letter Signs Delivery Mechanism
Parameter.Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Netw Yes - existing lighting network
Retrfit - Yes
Pre-Purcase Agreement NC/MR-No..._._..__......................._._..........._............._........._..--_._._.._---_....
Application Process Use existing lighting project process
Incentive See Table 2-16
Reported Costs Actual
Reported Savings Deemed based on project
2-18 2006 FinAnswer4 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements ØNlT
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
2.4 LED MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS
Measure Description
LED message center signs are one, two, and three color LED text signs that tyically replace
incandescent signs in commercial and retail applications. There are two tyes of LED message
center signs: fixed and scrollng. Both types use LED lamps, which result in significant reduction
in demand and energy consumption over incandescent lamps. While not a high-volume measure,
PacifiCorp curently receives several projects incorporating LED message center signs per year.
As the curent custom analysis approach to estimating savings is expensive and time consuming,
PacifiCorp requested these measure be reviewed and a prescriptive or streamlined process be
identified if possible.
MeasurelTechnology Review
Limited information is available regarding LED message center signs. None of the primar data
resources contained information about this measure. PacifiCorp provided information on
approximately a dozen projects that included this technology that were processed through the
custom measure approach. While there was wide variation on the level of savings, costs, and
customer paybacks, some general trends were identified. Specifically, one key characteristic was
the average percentage of installed lighting wattage iluminated when signs were operating. This
value was found to be approximately 20% on average.
Utilty DSM Program Review
Only two utilties were found that offered prescriptive incentives for LED message center signs -
BC Hydro and Avista (BC Hydro 2006, Avista 2006). BC Hydro's program pays $0.06/kWh
based on first year savings. Avista's program pays $15 for an incandescent to LED retrofit for
Marquee or sign lighting fixtues. Application materials for A vista are unclear as to whether the
$15 incentive is per fixtue, per lamp, or some other basis.
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 includes requirements for LED message center sign. There
are no curent federal standards either.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-18 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
LED message center signs in Idaho.
Table 2.18. LED Message Center Sign Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
Vìsigrah Cor.
Multi Media Inc.
Trans Lux Sport
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
QNenr 2-192006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Prescriptive Recommendation
Based on the wide variety of savings and incentives from projects previously evaluated by
PacifiCorp, Nexant recommends PacifiCorp establish a prescriptive incentive path for LED
message center signs in retrofit situations. New instances of signs would not be eligible for
incentives. Customer participation would require a pre-approval process to allow PacifiCorp the
opportity to verify baseline conditions.
Measure Baseline
For eligible retrofit applications, customers/vendors would identify the baseline equipment in the
measure application.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Any message center sign utilizing LED light sources installed in a replacement situation would
be eligible.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
The customer would report project costs as part of the application process. To account for the
impact of marketing outreach and product placement as drivers in the decision process to install
LED message center signs, total project costs should be discounted by 25% to reflect an estimate
of the costs associated with energy savings.
Recommended approaches for calculating the demand and energy savings estimates for eligible
projects are as follows:
· The average demand reduction should be equal to 20% times the calculated total fixture
demand reduction that is equal to the installed lighting demand of the existing sign minus
the installed lighting demand of the new sign
· The annual energy savings would be equal to the average demand reduction times the
annual operating hours reported on the application
Incentive Levels
Incentives would be paid at the curent custom rate of $0.08/kWh, with incentives capped at
50% of the eligible measure costs or one year simple payback.
Delivery Mechanism
A pre-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignent of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Equipment
vendors and installers would be invited to join the curent Lighting Trade Ally network, but
purchase of a qualifying unit from a curent Trade Ally member would not be required. Table
2-19 includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
2-20 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNeanr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.19. LED Message Center Sign Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Foral Trade Ally Netwrk Optional - current lighting network-_.....__._----_.._...._..............................._...........................__._-................_-_._--_...._-_....__........._....................__._.__....._......._--
Pre-Purchase Agreement Yes - for retrofit applications only
Application Process New one-page application
Incentive $O.08/kWh
Reported Costs 75% of total costs from application and invoice
Reported Savings Deemed based on project
tJ....2-212006 FinAswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
2.5 UNITARY AC AND HP EQUIPMENT
Measure Description
Prescriptive incentives for high-effciency air conditioning and heat pump units are a key
component ofPacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive
incentives equal to $50/ton for qualifying equipment. N exant reviewed curent cost, savings, and
incentive levels for appropriateness.
Measure/Technology Review
Each of the primar resources provided data for high-effciency AC and HP equipment with the
exception of RTF. High-efficiency unitary equipment is a matue technology and a wealth of
information exists on the measure. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-20
below.
Table 2.20. Review of Unitary AC and HP Measure Information
Measure
Information Resource Notes
Available
Yes Ecotope 2003 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs for common AC and HP retrofis
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study---------------_._----_._...._-_....-.-----------------------------------------------------------------_.._....._--._----------.-----_..._._--_..--.-------------_._._..._---_.--.-.-----------------------------
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates for high-effciency AC and HP units
Yes Quantec 2005 Unitary savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs for common AC and HP retrofits
Yes KEMA2006 Unitary savings and cots included in comprehensive potential study
Yes CEE High-Effciency Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Initiative
(HECAC) includes effciency level and installation recommendations._______..__._ø._._...Q..~....._.............___.............._..__.._____..__...._____................__....._...._........_..___....._..._..~__.__...... ....-......-..-.----..-.
Yes Energy Star Energy Star labeling for qualifyng high-effciency AC and HP units
No RTF Some info on HP retrfits from electric heat
Yes NPCC2005 Cost and savings estimates for a variety of end-use markets for premium
effciency unitary equipment
Utilty DSM Program Review
Customer post-purchase prescriptive unitar ACärd HP incentives~are curently available from
four of the six primary utilities reviewed. All programs use the same minimum efficiency
requirements as the FinAnswer Express program. Table 2-21 and Table 2-22 provide an
overview these programs.
2-22 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tfNenr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.21. Prescriptive Unitary DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Notes ReferenceUtilty
No Avista Incentives available for equipment tune-ups Avista, 2006
Yes ETO Representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 ETO, 2006
---------..-;~~-----.-.---------;.~-~~~---;~~;----~::i~e~~fetjoñ-oñïy;rePresentat¡iie-Tñëëñt¡-iies-shõwñTi-.--.---.--;~~~~-~;:--;~~-------------
Customer incentives for PTAC/PTHP equipment, upstream
incentives for HVAC contractors
Yes PSE Representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 PSE, 2006_._--_.....__.._...__.._-.-.----------......-..-...----.....-..-----------------------------_._-------------_.__.._----_.-.__...._-_.------------------------------------_._----....-----------------_._------------_.._-_....--.._---.-------------------_......_.--.--------------.-----Yes Xcel Energy Representative incentives shown in Table 2-22 Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes PG&E PG&E,2006
Table 2.22. Prescriptive Unitary Incentive Levels
FinAnswer
Express
..65 kBtu/hr $50/ton N/A $100/ton $30/ton
65 - 135 kBtu/hr $50/ton $20/ton $100/ton $30/ton
135 - 240 kBtu/hr $50/ton $30/ton $1001ton $30/ton
240 - 760 kBtu/hr $50/ton 11.50/ton $100/ton $30/ton
;:760 kBtulhr $50/ton NA $100/ton $30/ton
1 An additional $4/ton is provided for every 0.1 EER that effciency exceeds minimum requirements
Xcel Energy 1
$50/ton
$50/ton
$50lton
$50/ton
$50/ton
Size Idaho Power PSEETO
Code Review
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set curent federal minimum unitary efficiency levels, however
minimum effciency requirements specified in IECC 2003 exceed these values. Minimum
effciency levels in IECC 2006 are the same as IECC 2003. The Energy Policy Act of2005
established new minimum efficiency levels for unitary equipment that wil become effective
. January 1, 2010. Minimum EER requirements under the new federal standard wil be consistent
with curent CEE Tier 2 effciency levels, which are also the curent minimum effciency
requirements for the program.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program is curently supported by approximately 10 HVAC
contractors and distrbutors through the HV AC Energy Effciency Allance. A current listing,
including complete contact information of these alles, is available through the program's web
site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for high-effciency unitary AC and HP equipment
continue to be offered under the FinAswer Express program using the curent delivery
mechanism.
tlNBnr 2006 FinAnswe~ Exprss Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-23
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Measure Baseline
Applicable minimum effciency levels for high-effciency unitary AC equipment in Idaho have
not changed since the last program update. As noted above, baseline effciencies wil need
modification when new federal minimum efficiency levels become effective in 20 i O.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
CEE Tier 2 effciency levels continue to be industr standard for incentive eligibility. To clarify
these effciency levels for equipment -:65,000 Btu, it is recommended that the curent tariffbe
updated to include a distinction between single phase and three phase equipment as is shown in
Table 2-23.
Table 2.23. Revised Minimum Efficiency Requirements for Unitary Equipment ~ 65,OOOBtu/hr
Minimum
Equipment Type Size Category Sub-eategory Effciency Standard
Reauirement
Unitary Commercial Air Conditioners,-: 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package 13.0 SEER
Air Cooled (three phase)11.6 EER ARI
(Cooling Mode)-: 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package 15.0 SEER 210/240
(sinale ohase)12.5 EER
Heat Pumps,-: 65,000 Btulhr Split System and Single Package 13.0 SEER
Air Cooled (three phase)11.6 EER ARI
(Cooling Mode)-: 65,000 Btu/hr Split System and Single Package 15.0 SEER 210/240
(sinale ohase)12.5 EER
Heat Pumps,-: 65,000 Btu/hr Split System (single phase)8.5 HSPF
Air Cooled Sinale Packaae (sinale phase)8.0 HSPF ARI
(Heating Mode)Spli System (three phase)8.0 HSPF 210/240
-: 65,000 Btu/hr Sinale Packaae (three ohase)7.5 HSPF
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Table 2-24 summarizes current incremental cost estimates for unitary AC equipment that meets
CEE's Tier 2 effciency levels. No change in the current estimated incremental cost values used
by the FinAswer Express program are recommended.
Table 2.24. Incremental Gross Unitary AC Costs ($/ton)
Size FinAnswer DEER XcelEnergy1 -PG&2 .Express
-:65 kBtu/hr $100/ton $ 175/ton $150/ton $158/ton
65 - 135 kBtu/hr $100/ton $149/ton $88/ton $79/ton
135 - 240 kBtu/hr $100/ton $111/ton $104/ton $79/ton
240 - 760 kBtu/hr $100lon $115/ton $81/ton $79/ton
=-760 kBtu/hr $100/ton $98/ton $157/ton $205/ton
Xcel Energy, 2006
2 PG&E,2003
Table 2-25 and Table 2-26 summarize curent energy and demand savings estimates,
respectively, for the FinAswer Express program and others for equipment that meets CEE's
2-24 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements øNenr
.Section 2 Measure Information
Tier 2 effciency levels. Both current energy and demand savings estimates (when energy
savings are normalized by cooling degree days) are within the range of estimates used by other
utilties. No changes to current savings estimates are recommended at this time.
Table 2-25. Estimated Annual Energy Savings (kWh-yr/ton) 1
Size DEER Xcel Energy2 PG&E3
..65 kBtu/hr 133 201 92 321
65 . 135 kBtu/hr 115 210 134 109
135 - 240 kBtu/hr 110 121 194 118
240 - 760 kBtu/hr 73 72 129 130
:.760 kBtu/hr 73 76 64 N/A
1 Savings are gross savings at the customer meter
2 Xcel Energy, 2006
3 PG&E,2003
Table 2-26. Estimated Peak Demand Savings (kW/ton) 1.Size FinAnswer DEER Xcel Energl PG&E3Express
..65 kBtu/hr 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.24
65 . 135 kBtulhr 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.08
135 . 240 kBtu/hr 0.15 0.09 0.16 0.09
240 - 760 kBtu/hr 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.10
:.760 kBtu/hr 0.09 0.06 0.05 N/A
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter
2 Xcel Energy, 2006
3 PG&E,2003
Incentive Levels
As curent incentive levels for high-efficiency unitar equipment are within the range offered by
similar utilty programs (seeTable 2-22), no changes in current incentive levels are
recommended at this time.
Delivery Mechanism
No changes to the curent delivery mechanism for high-efficiency unitary equipment are
suggested at this time.
.
tlNe 2006 FinAnswer! Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2.25
.
.
.
Measre Information Section 2
2.6 EVAPORATIVE COOLERS
Measure Description
Evaporative coolers provide cooling by blowing warm dr air through a moist medium. As the
air passes through the medium, some of the moistue from the pad evaporates into the air and
lowers the air's dry bulb temperatue. The effciency and effectiveness of the evaporative cooler
depends on the humidity and temperatue of the outside air, where very humid locations
generally canot take advantage of this tye of cooling. There are two tyes of evaporative
cooling, direct and indirect. Direct evaporative cooling takes outside air, blows it through the
medium, and directly passes it on to the space, which raises the humidity of the air. Indirect
evaporative cooling involves the same process, but after the outside air passes through the
medium, an air-to-air heat exchanger takes the cool air into space without raising the humidity.
Several manufactuers have equipment that combines these two processes into a direct/indirect
system, which can operate very effciently and lower the air temperatue below the outside wet-
bulb temperatue.
Prescriptive incentives for evaporative coolers are a curent component ofPacifiCorp's
FinAswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive incentives equal to $0.02/CFM
for qualifying equipment. Cost, savings, and incentive levels were reviewed for appropriateness
for this measure.
Measure/Technology Review
Several data sources contained information about evaporative cooling, but primarily in the form
of evaporative pre-cooling for outside air intake requirements. A sumary of the key resources
is included in Table 2-27 below.
Table 2.27. Review of Evaporative Cooler Information
Measure
Information
Available
Yes
Yes.......a___.
Yes
Resource Notes
Ecotope 2003
PG&E2003
Evaporative savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Savings and costs for advanced evaporative coolers---"---------------"""'"--------------------
Evaporative savings and costs included in comprehensive potential studyStellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005 Evaporative savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs direct evaporative coolers
"________,____""""":!-~_"___~~_~~__~?_?"~_"""_____""'_"'_"___"___":!~~~~m i~~,~~a.~~s a~~ co~":stirnates e~~!'~~~~~e p~::.~,~:~_________"__"___"__"""-No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF"~__'M__
NPCC2005Yes Market information for evaporative pre-coolers, but no cost or savings info
2-26 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancments tlNe
.
.
.
section 2 Measure Inforation
Utilty DSM Program Review
Prescriptive evaporative incentives are not widely available. Only PG&E offers incentives for
the traditional use of evaporative coolers. Table 2-28 provides an overview of the utilities
reviewed.
Table 2.28. Prescriptive Evaporative Cooler DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Notes Reference
Available
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO,2006
Yes Idaho Power $75/ton for evaportive pre-coolers, new construction only Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E $123/ton for advanced evaporative coers PG&E,2006
No PSE PSE,2006
___.._._._..._...._._..m__...__..__.______..______________________________________._____________________._....__m_..._____._....._._._..__...___________________________________.--.---------------..--..--------------------~----
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 200
Code Review
No curent Federal or Idaho state codes exist that affect evaporative coolers.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program is curently supported by approximately 10 HV AC
contractors and distrbutors through the HV AC Energy Efficiency Allance, the majority of
which support evaporative cooling technologies. A curent listing, including complete contact
information, of these alles is available through the program's web site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for evaporative cooling equipment continue to be
offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Evaporative coolers most commonly displace code compliant unitary equipment. No changes in
the current baseline assumptions are suggested at this time.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
There are no minimum effciency requirements for evaporative coolers - any compressor-less
technology that utilizes evaporative cooling curently qualifies under the program.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Curent cost estimates for evaporative coolers are $0.26/cfm. Additional information was
obtained from Adobe Air (Adobe, 2006) and Phoenix Manufactung, Inc. (PMI, 2006) to verify
cost data for curent program. Results are given in Table 2-29 below. As curent cost estimates
appear to fall within the range of values identified, no changes are suggested at this time. At an
i.1Nenr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancments 2-27
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
average cost of $600/ton for code compliant unitary equipment, the incremental cost for
evaporative cooling equipment remains about -$0.25/CFM.
Table 2.29. Evaporative Cooler Costs1
Resource Customer Cost ($/CFM)
Adobe Air- Single Stage System $ 0.21
Adobe Air- Two Stage System $ 0.41
PMI Inc. $ 0.22
PG&E 2003 $0.10
DEER (Indirect coler) $0.43
i Costs are gross customer costs for unit purchase and
installation
Table 2-30 lists the curent energy and demand savings estimates in comparison to values taken
from PG&E (PG&E 2003). While curent savings estimates are slightly lower than PG&E's
values even when adjusted for cooling degree day differences, they are based on impact
evaluations from PacifiCorp's Cool Cash Incentive program and expected to be fairly accurate
based on measured data. Therefore, no changes to the curent savings estimates are suggested.
Table 2.30. Estimated Evaporative Cooler Savings 1
Cooling
Reference Degree kWh-yr/CFM W/CFM
Days
FinAnswer Express 387 0.39 0.55
PG&E2003 493 0.42 0.85
PG&E2003 720 0.56 0.78
PG&E2003 861 0.62 0.72
PG&E2oo3 1,003 0.80 0.80
PG&E2003 1,331 0.97 0.73
PG&E2003 1,729 1.29 0.75
PG&E2003 2,252 1.13 0.50
1 Values are gros savings at the customer meter
Incentive Levels
Differences in the curent incentive level of $0.02/cfm compared to those offered by Idaho
Power and PG&E (approximately $0.05/CFM and $0.09/CFM, respectively) are related to
variations in equipment eligibilty. As outlined above, the curent estimated incremental
customer cost for evaporative cooling equipment is stil negative (-$0.25/CFM) and no changes
to the current incentive level are recommended.
Delivery Mechanism
No changes to the current delivery mechanism for evaporative cooling equipment are suggested
at this time.
2.28 2006 FinAnswei0 Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancements ØNeøn
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
2.7 WATER CHILLING EQUIPMENT (CHILLERS)
Measure Description
Water chiling equipment (e.g. chilers) is commonly used to provide cooling for a varety of
building tyes and process loads. The most common applications are for larger cooling loads
(e.g. 50 to 100 tons and greater). Chilers come in many different types (centrifugal, rotary,
screw, scroll, reciprocating, and gas absorption) and tyically reject waste heat either through
air-cooled or water-cooled condensers. PacifiCorp curently receives several projects
incorporating chiler measures each year. As the curent custom analysis approach to estimating
savings is expensive and time consuming, PacifiCorp requested these measure be reviewed and a
prescriptive or streamlined process be identified if possible. This approach wil also allow
PacifiCorp to be more responsive to customer schedule constraints.
Measure/Technology Review
Approximately half of the primar data sources reviewed for this effort contained information
about high efficiency chilers. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-31 below.
Table 2-31. Review of High-Effciency Chiler Information
Measure
Information Resource Notes
Available
Evaluation of market level savings for installation of high effciency chilers in
Yes Ecotope 2003 both retrofit and new constrction applications - see cot information in Table
2-32_..m..___..__________,_.__,,_.____.....____.___.__....________.__............__.__........_............................,,_.._--_............................._......_--
No PG&E2003
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Replication of work from Ecotope 2003
Per partcipant cost and savings data for three size categones, but no
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 information on assumed baseline or installed effciency levels - see cost
information in Table 2-32
Market level savings potential for installation of both costant speed
Yes Quantec 2005 (.51kWlton) and vanable speed (0.47 kW/ton) high-ffciency chilers;
assumed cost values unclear...--_...........,................._...._.._._....__.............................................__......_.__._...................-.__........._._....-._-.._._-_....._...........-.......-_......._................_............._.
Yes DEER Savings estimates for multiple chiler retrfits at a vanety to facilty tyes;
incremental cost data for common measure types
Yes KEMA2006 Market level savings and cost estimates for high effciency centnfugal chiler
(0.51 kW/ton vs. 0.58 kW/ton)--._____..._._......___................................_._______..__MM~'____'
No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF.._---~-~--_-.~--~-~.__..~~.~~.~_~_~___M.~..__.~~__
Yes NPCC2005 Market level savings and cost data for vanable speed chiler
t1Ne 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-29
.
.
.
Measure Information Sectio 2
Table 2.32. Chiler Incremental Cost Data
Heat Chiler Size Baseline New Incremental Incremental CostSourceRejectionTypeRangeEffciencyEffciencyCost($/ton/O.1 A TI)(tons)(kWlton)(kW/ton)($/ton)
Ecotope water centnfugal ::300 0.65 0.51 60 402003
KEMA water centrifugal ::300 0.58 0.51 35 502006
Xcel
Energy water centrifugal ::300 87
2006..--_..._..............................................._-_.................................................__..._-_..................__._......._-_.._....._.............__......................._._-_....................._............._...__........._..........-...__._-_.............._-
Xcel
Energy water centnfugal 150-300 68
2006
Xcel
Energy air 150-300 34
2006
NPCC water centrifugal +::300 0.576 0.47 39 372005VSD
DEER water centrifugal -:150 0.634 0.56 146 197....._..._............~_.~......_---_............................._.................................................;........._.._-_.........-.._......_.._--....__..__...........--~---_.._.._-._----
DEER air reciprocating 1.260 1.008 40 16
DEER water centrifugal +-:150 0.700 0.560 66 47VSD-_._.__..-....---.----.-..-.._---_.._--------------............................._..........._....___............................___.._......._._.....b.........._._._______....._...._.---------_..__.._-_..__._....-_.-.._---_.._-----------------_...._._-
DEER air screw All 1.260 1.008 42 17
DEER water reciprocating All 0.837 0.672 16 10
DEER water centrifugai 150-300 0.634 0.507 94 74.__....___.____~._..............._....~._b___..........._........._.____..~.........._._.___.._..._.._____._~...._...~~-.....-..-._-..-..-....-_.._.
DEER water centrifugal ,.300 0.576 0.461 66 57
DEER water screw -:150 0.790 0.632 49 31
DEER water screw 150-300 0.718 0.574 25 ;18
DEER water screw ,.300 0.639 0.511 11 9
DEER water centrifugal +150-300 0.634 0.507 77 61VSD....._._--_._.__...~----_.~-_._--~---_..._._............_--_.._..._------_.._..._.....-.._._-_......_--_...-
DEER water centrifugal +::300 0.576 0.461 83 72VSD
Utilty DSM Program Review
Table 2-33 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
2-30 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tlM!Qnr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.33. Chiler Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive Minimum
Incentive Utilty Heat Chiler Size Range Effciency Incentive Reference
Available Rejection Type (tons)11 ($/ton)
(kWlton)
No Avista Avista, 2006
~.._._................._......._..__..._.._..._.h...ti............h..........................................._._____........................_.__.__......................ti.._.......ti..............................h.............._.._______........h.............................._.M_._..............................................h........__..._......
Air All c: 150 1.066 $50
Air All ?, 150 1.106 $50
Water Recip All 0.549 $50
Yes-New Water Scrw/scrl c: 150 0.651 $50
construction ET01 Water Scrw/scrl ?, 150 & c:300 0.606 $50 ETO,2006
only Water Scr/scrl ?, 300 0.536 $50
Water Cntrfgl c: 150 0.592 $50
Water Cntrgl ?, 150 & c:300 0.523 $50
Water Cntrfgl ?, 300 0.475 $50
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No PG&E PG&E,2oo6
No PSE PSE,2006
Water RoUscr c: 150 0.65 10+30/.1 1\ 11
Water RoUscrw ?, 150 0.64 10+30/.1 1\ 11
Yes Xcel Energy Water Cntrfgl c: 150 0.65 12+30/.1 1\ 11 Xcel Energy, 2006
Water Cntrgl ?,150 & c:3oo 0.61 12+30/.1 1\ 11
Water Cntrfgl ?,300 0.56 12+30/.1 1\ 11
Air All c: 150 1.25 5+15/.11\11
Air All ?, 150 1.25 10+15/.11\11
Yes APS1 Water All ~200 0.74 7+20/.1 1\ 11 APS,2oo6
Water All :;200&~400 0.67 7+20/.1 1\ 11
Water All :;400 0.54 6+20/.1 1\ 11............._.....""-~--_..__..-.__..~.._.""_.__._-_........................_____................_~___.........~ti.....__u............__
Air All c: 150 1.30 250
Air All ?,150 & c:3oo 1.41 250
Austin Air All ?, 300 1.41 250/175 Austin Energy,Yes Energ¡.3 2006WaterAllc: 150 0.92 250
Water All ?,150 & c:3oo 0.84 250
Water All :; 300 0.75 250/175
Air All All 1.17 5 and up
Water Recip c: 150 0.78 3t023
Water Scrw/scrl ?,150 & c:300 0.73 3to23
Yes FP&L Water Scrw/scr ?, 300 0.67 3 to 18 FP&L,2006
Water Cntrgl c: 150 0.58 3 to 18
Water Scrw/scr ?,150 & c:300 0.59 3 to 12
Water Cntrgl ?, 300 0.53 -67.5*11+38.93
Water All c: 150 0.62 600
Yes Manitoba Water All ?,150 & c:300 0.55 600 Manitoba Hydro,
Hydro1,4 2006
Water All :;300 0.46 600
t1Ne 2.312006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
.
.
Measure Information Secüon2
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Minimum
Effciency
11
(kWlton)..............._--_..._......._._.....................-._-...._---_...........__._...- ....................._--_..._..........._........................__.._....~............All " 150 1.20
All .: 150 1.20
All "70 0.75
All .: 70 & "150 0.75
All .: 150 & "300 0.62
All .:300 0.53
Incentive
($Iton)
Chiler
Type
Size Range
(tons)
Heat
Rejection ReferenceUtilty
Yes
Air
Air
NJ Clean WaterEnergy 5 Water
Water
Water
-200*ri+254
-200*ri+248
-200*ri+166
Varies
NJ Clean Energy,
2006
-5OO*ri+326
Vanes
1 Minimum effciency requirements are for IPL V ratings, not COP
2 Incentives are paid on $IkW saved where kW savings equal tons* t! kW/ton / Oversize factor
3 Incentives for chilers" 500 tons is $250IkW, for chilers.: 500 tons it's $175IkW
4 Incentives are in Canadian dollars
5 Incentives also available for water cooled chilers based on IPL V effciencies
Code Review
IECC 2003 specifies minimum effciency requirements for water chillng packages based on
type and size. IECC 2006 includes more strngent minimum effciency requirements for some
equipment. Table 2-34 lists the curent code requirements in Idaho (IECC 2003) and the IECC
2006 requirements.
Table 2.34. Code Minimum Efficiencies for Chiled Water Packages
IECC 2003 IECC 2006
Heat Type Size
Rejection Category Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum
COP IPLV COP ¡IPLV
Air cooled screw " 150
I
2.80 2.80 2.80 3.05
;. 150 2.50 2.50 2.80 3.05
Air coled reciprocating " 1 2.80 2.80 2.80 3.05
i;. 1 2.50 2.50 2.80 3.05
Water cooled reciproating All capacities !4.20 4.65 4.20 5.05
Water cooled rotary/screw/scroll " 150 4.45 4.50 4.45 5.20
rotary/screw/scroll .: 150 &" 300 4.90 4.95 4.90 5.60
rotary/screw/scroll .:300 5.50 5.60 5.50 6.15_.._.~-----_....._-----_.__...__........._._........_.._........-.....
Water cooled centnfugal " 150 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.25
centnfugal .: 150 &" 300 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.90
centnfugal ;. 300 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.40
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program is curently supported by approximately 10 HV AC
contractors and distrbutors though the HVAC Energy Effciency Allance. Several of these
vendors also sell and support high effciency chiler equipment. A curent listing, including
. complete contact information, of these alles is available through the program's web site.
2.32 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNetlnT
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Inforation
Prescriptive Recommendation
Chiler savings and incentive calculations in the FinAswer progrm have to-date been
calculated using a detailed analysis approach. While detailed analysis, if done properly, provides
the best savings estimates for these tyes of retrofits, detailed project-by-project engineering is
expensive, complex and time consuming. To date, PacifiCorp's implementation rate on
comprehensive chiler retrofit projects where detailed engineering and analysis was provided is
fairly low (less than 25%). Possible explanations for this may include customer schedule and
budget constraints when customers began paricipating in the program relative to their project
schedule. As demonstrated by the reduced administrative costs and increased program
paricipation and overall savings for other measures where a streamlined process is available
(e.g. unitar HVAC and motors), a prescriptive approach for calculating and offering incentives
for high-efficiency chilers can help address these issues.
The main concern with prescriptive incentives for chilers is the potential order of magnitude of
incentives and savings, which are a strong fuction of several independent variables. To balance
the value of a prescriptive-option against the additional savings uncertainty associated with
simplified savings calculations, a simplified method that corrects for the primary independent
variables to improve chiler measure savings estimation accuracy while stil allowing for a
prescriptive approach under the FinAswer Express program is recommended.
Specifically, a simplified savings calculation tool developed by Nexant for use in PacifiCorp's
FinAswer Express program requires only nine project specific input parameters in addition to
general customer and facility information:
· Baseline chiler heat rejection (e.g. water or air-cooled)
· Baseline chiler tye (e.g. screw, centrfugal, etc.)
· Proposed chiler heat rejection
· Proposed chiler tye
· Proposed chiler nameplate capacity
· Indication as to whether a VFD is included in the new chiler
· Proposed chiler COP
· Proposed chiler IPL V
· Proposed chiler cost
The chiler tool, which calculates the estimated anual energy and peak demand savings, was
developed based on regressions of equivalent full load hours for various facility tyes from
DEER savings data (DEER 2006).
ttll 2006 FinAnsw~ Express Market Charaerization and Program Enhancements 2-33
.
.
.
Measure Information sectio 2
Measure Baseline
The chiler tool uses IECC 2003 minimum efficiency levels corresponding to the baseline chiler
parameters. See Table 2-34 for a listing of these minimum effciency requirements.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
To help screen out projects where a comprehensive, detailed engineering approach is stil the
best option, chilers, whether installed in a retrofit, replacement, or new constrction project,
must meet the following requirements to be eligible for the prescriptive incentive offering:
· Chiler must not be a backup unit
· COP and IPL V ratings determined in accordance with the appropriate test procedure
must exceed minimum effciencies required by code - a copy of the equipment
manufactuer's specifications must accompany the application materials showing the
unit's COP and IPL V ratings
· IPL V ratings must account for VFDs installed on the chiler compressor when present
· Chiler loads must not be more than 20% process related
· Projects must not incorporate significant deviations from tyical chiler operational
practices (e.g. non-standard chiled water or condenser water set points, ice production
during off peak hours, changes in chiler sequencing, etc.)
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
In the absence of actual incremental cost estimates, the chiler tool includes default incremental
cost estimates taken from DEER (DEER 2006). Table 2-35 lists these values.
Table 2.35. Default Incremental Chiler Costs
Heat Size Cost Baseline Incremental Cost
Rejection Type Category Effciency ($/ton/O.1 A 11)1
(kW/ton)
Air cooled screw All capacities 1.26 $17
Air cooled reciprocating All capacities 1.26 $16------_._._._..._...------...--.----------------------_.-_._.._.-------_.._-----------_....._----
Water cooled reciprocating All capacities 0.84 $10
Water coled rotary/scrw/scroll .. 150 0.79 $31
rotary/screw/scroll :: 150&.. 300 0.72 $18
rotary/screw/scroll ;. 300 0.64 $9
Water coled centrifugal .. 150 0.70 $197
centrifugal :: 150 &.. 300 0.63 $74
centrifugal ;. 300 0.58 $57
1 Incremental cost is based on nameplate chiler capacity at standard rating conditions and COP rating.
Example: A water-cooled scew chiler has a nameplate capacity of 175 tons and a COP of 0.55 kWlton at ARI
Standard 550/590 rating conditions. The estimated incremental cost equals:
175 tons. $18. (0.72 - 0.55.) / 0.1 = $5.355
2-34 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements i1Nenr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
The approach outlined under the Prescriptive Recommendation section above wil be used to
estimate savings for individual projects.
Incentive Levels
Incentive levels matching the curent Energy FinAnswer values of $0. 12/kWh and $50/average
kW are recommended for the following reasons:
· Basing incentives on the estimated savings levels for a project ensures that overall
program cost-effectiveness is maintained, which can be particularly important for
projects with large savings values such as chiler retrofits
· A pay for savings approach allows incentives to be paid for any equipment that exceeds
codes requirements without the need to establish new minimum effciency eligibility
levels based on chiler size and type
· The consistency in incentive levels wil allow for easy transition of projects between
Energy FinAswer and FinAswer Express when necessary
Delivery Mechanism
A pre-approval process wil help to ensure that projects are rerouted to the Energy FinAswer
program when comprehensive and detailed engineering analysis wil likely result in additional
realized savings. The recommended delivery process for prescriptive chilers is shown below in
Figue 2-1.
elNBnr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2.35
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
CustomerJ
Ally
PacifiCorpJ
ProgramAdministator
Submit application for pre-
approval
Appropriate
prescriptive
project
Proceed with project
installation Y
N
Submit final application. cut
sheet and invoice
Reroute project to Energy
FlnAnswer
Figure 2.1. Prescriptive Chiler Delivery Process
Table 2-36 includes a sumar of the key progrm delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2.36. Prescriptive Chiler Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Fonnal Trade Ally Netw Yes - existing HVAC network---_..-----n ~._.____~__._-_.
Pre-Purchase Agreement Project pre-approval encouraged
Application Procss New chiler application
Incentive $O.12/Wh and $50/average kW
Reported Costs Deemed from chiler calculation too unless
provided
Reported Savings Deemed based on project
2-36 200 FinAnswe~ Exprss Market Characterization and Program Enhancments tJNe
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Informatio
2.8 PROGRAMMABLE THERMOSTATS
Measure Description
Programmable thermostats provide improved control for HVAC zones were occupancy levels
vary according to a predictable schedule. Prescriptive incentives for programmable thermostats
are a current component ofPacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes
prescriptive incentives of $50 for thermostats applied to air conditioning equipment, and $75 for
thermostats applied to heat pump equipment. Cost, savings, and incentive levels were reviewed
for appropriateness for this measure.
Measure/Technology Review
Approximately half of the sources contained information about programmable thermostats for
existing commercial applications. A sumary of the key resources is included in Table 2-37
below.
Table 2.37. Review of Programmable Thermostat Information
Measure
Information Resource Notes
Available
Yes Ecotope 2003 Thermostats reviewed in context of HVAC tune ups in comprehensive
potential study
Yes PG&E 2003 Savings and costs fo programmable thermostats..no_......____.no...___.......;.___......_.................._._..________.__._.__......_._.....~._._--.__.........______.._._.._......_........................__..._...__.....................no.--_...-.._...._.................-
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005 Setback savings and cots included in comprehensive potential study-_._-_.----_."_._-------------....._--_._..-.--.-._._- ._--_.._.__..._--.__._-----_.._..------_._..-_.__..-
Yes DEER Savings and costs direct evaporative coolers
Yes KEMA2006 Proram level savings and cost estimates for setback thermostat retrofits
No CEE
Yes Energy Star Labeling and savings informtion for residential applications
No RTF_..__.__...............-.._---.----_..._.._._._._......._......_.-._._-_._--_.._-_._._...-._...........__._---_........_-_..._-_.__.._.._...._....._~----......no
No NPCC2005
Utilty DSM Program Review
Prescriptive programmable thermostat incentives are not widely available. Only Puget Sound
Energy and APS offer incentives for progrmmable thermostats. Table 2-38 provides an
overview the utilties reviewed.
~Ne 2.372006 FinAnswe~ Exprss Market Characterization and Program Enhancments
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2.38. Programmable Thermostat DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Notes Reference
Available
No Avista Avista,2006
No ETO ETO,2006
..........................................._....._.........................m...._............._....__..................................._...................______.__.....__........................................................_._.....................--_.........."......................................_..........._...........................__..
No Idaho Power Idaho Power,2006
No PG&E PG&E,2006
Yes PSE $50 per programmable thermostat PSE,2006.....-----.............................---................................................._....-...........................-........................................._...._....__..._...__._......................................_-_.__..................._-_...--_......
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy,2006
Yes APS $50 per programmable thermostat APS,2006
Code Review
Under IECC 2003, programmable thermostats are required on any new HV AC unit (except
PTAC equipment) unless it serves a hotel guestroom (Section 803.2.3). Requirements are the
same in IECC 2006.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program is curently supported by approximately 10 HV AC
contrctors and distributors through the HV AC Energy Effciency Allance. A curent listing,
including complete contact information, of these alles is available through the program's web
site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for programmable thermostats not required by
code continued to be offered under the FinAswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Baseline is existing HV AC equipment without a programmable thermostat installed.
Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Progrmmable thermostats are curently required to meet Energy Star requirements. As Energy
Star is expected to discontinue their labeling program for programable thermostats in 2007, a
tarff modification to identify minimum efficiency requirements consistent with curent Energy
Star requirements is recommended.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Table 2-39 includes a sumary of the estimated costs and savings associated with programmable
thermostats. Curent savings estimates for FinAswer Express are based on installation of a
programmable thermostat for a 10-ton HV AC unit on average. When information was provided
on customer applications, the average HV AC unit size for programmable thermostats installed to
2-38 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Proram Enhancements øNeonr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
date under the FinAswer Express program is 9.75 tons. No adjustments to curent savings or
cost estimates are recommended at this time.
Table 2.39. Programmable Thermostat Savings and Costs1, 2
Annual
Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr)
FinAnswer Express $432 2,755Ecotope 2003 $400 1,100
PG&E 2003 $58 4,093
1 Costs are gross customer costs for unit purchase and installation
2 Savings are gross savings at the meter
Peak
Demand
Savings (kW)Resource
Customer
Cost
($/unit)
o
o
o
Incentive Levels
Utilities that offer incentives for programmable thermostats are consistently paying around
$50/unit. No adjustments to curent incentive levels are recommended at this time.
Delivery Mechanism
Curent due-diligence review activities to identify ineligible projects (e.g. those where code
applies) should continue and no changes to the curent delivery mechanism for programmable
thermostats are suggested at this time.
e'..""200 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2.39
.
.
.
Measure Inforation Section 2
2.9 OCCUPANCY BASED PTHP/PTAC CONTROLS
Measure Description
Packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP) and packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) are
commonly installed in the hospitality industr to provide heating and cooling of individual guest
rooms. Occupancy based PTHPIPTAC controllers are a combination of a control unit and
occupancy sensor that operate in conjunction to provide occupancy controlled heating and/or
cooling. The control unit plugs into a wall socket and the PTHPIPTAC plugs Iito the control
unit. The control unit is operated by an occupancy sensor that is mounted in the room and turns
the PTHPIPTAC on and off. The most common application for occupancy based PTHPIPTAC
controls is hotel rooms.
Measure/Technology Review
Only one reference was found that provided a comprehensive overview of estimated costs and
savings for this measure; 509 kWhyr energy savings, 0.098 kW peak demand savings, and
incremental customer cost of $171 per unit (Xcel Energy 2006) Additional cost information
($230/unit) was provided by Alex Setian of Smart Systems (Setian 2006).
Utity DSM Program Review
Table 2-40 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utilty companies.
Table 2-40 Occupancy Based PTHP/PTAC Control Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive IncentiveIncentiveUtilty($/unit)Notes Reference
Available ,
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO,2006
No PSE PSE,2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 200
Door sensor and controller
Yes Xcel Energy $100 required in every guest Xcel Energy, 2006
room
No PG&E PG&E,2006
Yes BC Hydro $45 BC Hydro, 2006.__hh_._.._...___....__._n....nnn.._..._-....-..-._............._..__.__._------_.....-
Yes National Grid $75 National Grid, 2006
Yes NStar Electric $40 NStar Electc 2006
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 includes requirements for occupancy based PTHP/PTAC
controls for equipment serving guest rooms in hotel facilties.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-41 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
occupancy based PTHPIPTAC control equipment in Idaho.
2-40 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancments tlNetJ
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.41. Occupancy Based PTHP/PTAC Control Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
Smart Systems
ENERNET
InnCo
Phone Number
[phone]
(315) 449-839
[phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to tr to increase the penetration rates of occupancy based PTHPIPTAC control
units, incorporation of a prescriptive incentive for qualifying products in the FinAswer Express
program is recommended. Additional details regarding this recommendation are provided below.
Measure Baseline
Baseline for this measure wil be a PTHP or PTAC unit without an occupancy based control
system.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
Controller units must include an occupancy sensor and include both the capabilty to setback the
zone temperature durng extended unoccupied periods and setup the temperatue once the zone is
occupied.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
The deemed gross incremental measure cost for qualifying units is $200/unit. Estimated gross
annual energy and peak demand savings are 446 kWhunit and 0.098 kW/unit, respectively,
based on numbers reported by Xcel Energy and scaled appropriately based on Pocatello weather
data. As these savings estimates are based on a single reference, it is recommended that
PacifiCorp work with early program participants to conduct actual pre- and post-measurement of
energy use to verify the accuracy of these values.
Incentive Levels
An incentive of $50 per qualifying unit is recommended.
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibilty to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Equipment
vendors and installers would be invited to join the curent HV AC Trade Ally network. Table
2-42 includes a summary of the key progrm delivery mechanism characteristics.
QNe 2006 FinAnswe~ Exprss Market Characterization and Program Enhanceents 2-41
.
.
.
Measure Inforation Section 2
Table 2.42. PTHP/PTAC Occupancy Sensor Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Networ Yes - existing HVAC network.._~--'.~""""'~'n"""'''''''''''''''''-''''''''''''''.........._................................................................_____....__......__.._n_.M.........................._......._
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process Incorporate measure into current HVAC
application............................_---_..._-..-_..........................._..............._--_................................-................_......................__.._....................................-......
Incentive $50 per qualifying unit
Repored Costs Stipulated at $200/unit
Reported Savings Stipulated at 446 kWh/unit and 0.098 kW/unit
2-42 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements "" Ne
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
2.10 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES
Measure Description
Variable frequency drves (VFD) or variable speed drves (VSD) are electronic controls that
regulate motor speed and torque, resulting in reduced energy consumption by motors and
pumping equipment under part load conditions. Energy savings from VFD installations var
depending on the application, but range from 7% to 80%. In order to qualify for the Finnswer
Express program in Idaho, VFDs must be installed HV AC fans and/or pumps that are less than
or equal to i 00 horsepower. In addition, throttling or bypass devices, such as inlet vanes, bypass
dampers, three-way valves, or throttling valves must be permanently removed or disabled.
Measure/Technology Review
VFDs are a common energy effciency measure. Table 2-43 contains a sumary of the key
findings from the primar data resources. Information from NYSERDA's deemed cost and
savings database was also reviewed (Nexant, 2005).
Table 2-43. Review of VFD Measure Information
Measure Annual Demand Incremental
Information Resource Size Notes Energy Savings1 Cost 2
Savings1Available(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 Various In conjunction 1 kWh/sqft $130/HPwith ECMs._......._-_..__.._..__.......__.......................................................................__._._-_..........._--_.......--..._.....__...._--_...................-_._.._.__.__...__..._--_......................__......_---_._...
Yes PG&E2003 Various HVAC 753/HP 0 $202lHPapplication
Various Tower pumps 1%$0.20/kWhYesStellar Processes 2006 Various Motors 2%$0.67/kWh
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Various All applications 3,657kWh $500/kW/kW
Market level
Yes Quantec 2005 Various savings and
costs
Yes DEER HVAC $2221HPapplication
Yes KEMA2006 5HP HVAC Fan 465 0.24 $385
No CEE
No Energy Star...._.__._._---_.............._........__._.................................._.........._...._..._-_........__...._-_..............--._...__...._------_.........._......_--._-_............._...._-_..
No RTF
No NPCC2005
Various HVACfan 1656/hp 0.25/hp $80/hp
Yes Nexant2005 Various HVAC pump 1084/hp 0.31/hp $801hp
Various Boiler pump 1636lhp 0.361hp $801hp
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
etll 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characerization and Program Enhancements 2-43
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Utilty DSM Program Review
Table 2-44 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2.44 VFD Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive
Available
Incentive
($/unit)Notes ReferenceUtilty
Yes Avista $60 - $95 HVAC applications Avista, 2006 No ETO ETO, 2006
Yes PSE $5Q-$65Ihp HVAC applications PSE,2006..............................._.._........._.._..__._...........-----_.........-...__._..._---_...................._...................~..._..._-_.........................__....._-_._._.-_................_._---_........................_.........._--No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes Xcel Energy $30/hp HVAC applications Xcel Energy, 2006
Yes PG&E $80/hp HVAC applications PG&E,2006--.---------------------------_._----_.._-_.-...-.-. --_._..._.-...._...--...--....-------------------_.._...._.------.--------------------_......_----_......_---_..._.-------------_..-..---.------
Yes NYSERDA $10-$20/hp Any application NYSERDA,2006
Yes Focus On Energy $301hp HVAC and pool applications FOE, 2006
Code Review
IECC 2003 includes varable control requirements on air handling fans 25 HP and larger. IECC
2006 includes similar requirements, but for air handling fans 10 HP and larger.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-45 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
VFDs in Idaho. In addition,PacifiCorp's FinAswer Express program is curently supported by
approximately 10 motor and 10 HV AC contractors and distrbutors through the Motor Energy
Effciency Allance, many of whom provide VFD sales and service. A curent listing, including
complete contact information, of these alles is available through the program's web site.
Table 2.45. VFD Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
RSD Total Contro
Applied Automation Inc.
Control Equipment Company
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for varable frequency drves continue to be
offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Motors serving variable loads but without VFD modulation capabilty wil serve as the baseline
for this measure.
2-44 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characenzation and Program Enhancements tJNe
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Minimum Effciency Requirements
In order to qualify for the FinAswer express program, VFDs must be installed on HV AC fans
and/or pumps that are less than or equal to i 00 horsepower. In addition, thottling or bypass
devices, such as inlet vanes, bypass dampers, thee-way valves, or throttling valves must be
permanently removed or disabled. VFDs required by code wil not be eligible for incentives.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
RSD Total Control provided cost data for several sizes ofVFDs. From this data, an average cost
per horsepower was estimated at $187/HP. A review of the various price estimates, summarzed
in Table 2-43, shows that this is within the range of other cost data identified and wil therefore
be used as the deemed cost for evaluating preliminary measure cost effectiveness. Customer
applications wil require an invoice, where the actual unit cost wil be taken for reporting
purposes. To estimate the energy savings for eligible measures, a prototyical offce building
was modeled in EQuest in Pocatello, ID. Table 2-46 summarizes the prescriptive cost and
savings assumptions for this measure.
Table 2.46. VFD Unit Measure Cost and Savings - HVAC Applications
Gross Nee
Annual Annual
Incremental Demand Energy Incremental Demand Energy
Customer Savings1 Savings1 Customer Savings1 Savings1
Measure Cost ($/HP)(kW/HP)(kWh/HP)Cost1 ($/HP)(kW/HP)(kWh/HP)
HVAC FanVFD $187.00 0.0 1,184 $ 179.52 0.0 1,137
HVAC Pump VFD $187.00 0.0 919 $179.52 0.0 882
1 Savings values reflect savings at the customer meter
2 Net cost, demand, and energy savings are calculated using an estimated Net to Gross (NTG) ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Incentive Levels
The recommended incentive level for qualifying VFD equipment is $65/hp, reduced from
$80/hp.
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibilty to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Application
materials would include a disclosure that savings wil only be realized for installations where a
variable load is present. Due-dilgence review activities should attempt to identify ineligible
projects (e.g. those where code applies). In addition, applicants should be required to indicate
what control signal wil be used to modulate the VFD. Equipment vendors and installers would
be invited to join the curent HVAC or Motor Trade Ally network. Table 2-47 includes a
summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
øNe 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-45
.
.
.
Measure Infortion Secon 2
Table 2-47. VFD Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Fonnal Trade Ally Network Yes - existing HVAC and Motor networks-_.__........._......._.....__._-_._..........._-_...................................._........_....._-_......_-_....................--_......................_...._................._......._.._.
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process Incorprate measure into current HVAC and
revised motor application---------------------------------------_._-_._--------.--_._------_..........................................._..._.................__......-_....................
Incentive $65 perHP
Reported Costs Actual costs from application and invoice
Reported Savings Deemed based on project - see Table 2-46
2-46 tlNenr2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
2.11 ELECTRONICALLY COMMUTATED MOTORS
Measure Description
An electronically commutated motor (ECM) is a fractional horsepower direct curent (DC)
motor used most often in commercial refrgeration applications such as display cases, walk-in
coolers/freezers, refrgerated vending machines, and bottle coolers. ECMs can also be used in
HV AC applications, primarily as small fan motors for packaged terminal units or in terminal air
boxes. ECMs generally replace shaded pole (SP) motors and offer at least 50% energy savings.
Analysis efforts summarzed in this report focused on the most prevalent use of ECMs -
refrgeration, where motor sizes are tyically listed in watt (10-140 W), and HVAC
applications, where motors sizes are tyically listed in horsepower (e.g. 1/3 to 1 HP).
MeasurelTechnology Review
Five of the primar data sources reviewed for this effort contained data for ECMs in
refrigeration and HVAC applications. The NPCC study gave savings estimates for upgrading a
CA V box single speed motor to an ECM. The other four studies gave wide-ranging savings and
cost data for compressor, condenser, and evaporator fan motors. kW Engineering completed a
study for PacifiCorp in October of2005 regarding the market for ECMs in walk-in refrgerators
(kW Engineering, 2005). This study included the market share in each state for refrigeration
ECMs as well as cost and energy savings data. These values for incremental costs and energy
and demand savings are given in Table 2-48 below.
øNe 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characerization and Progrm Enhancements 2-47
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2.48. Review of ECM Measure Information
Measure Annual Demand Incremental
Information Resource Application Energy Savings1 Cost 2
Savings1Available(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 Small Evaporator Fan ECM 200 0.0 $40
Yes PG&E2003 Evaporator Fan 673 0.077 $160
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Small Evaporaor Fan ECM 200 0.0 $40
No Xcel Energy 2006.__._.____._..~..................................._........_.....m..._................_..__.....__.....__.._.._____.___.........__..............._-_................_.....-...__......__..........._-................_-_._-_............_...
No Quantec 2005
No DEER
No KEMA2006................................_..........................._-_.-_................._.........._._--_....._............................._..-_....._.._-----_..._.........._....._._.............._-_._-..........._....................._.._-_.~_.__...._._--~
Evaporator Fan - Freezer 115 0.013 $24
Condenser Fan - Freezer 141 0.016 $24
Compressor Fan - Freezer 985 0.112 $160YesCEEEvaporator Fan - Refrigerator 294 0.034 $48
Condenser Fan - Refrigerator 141 0.016 $22
Compressor Fan - Freezer 690 0.079 $150
No Energy Star
No RTF...u._...~..._._........_..____..._.___.._................_________.________._.__..__.........-_._.._._-_...__......._.__....._._-_._-_.._._..................__.._~......................_...._---
Yes NPCC2005 CAVBox 517 0.397 $200
Yes kW Engineering 2005 Evaporator Fan 734 0.084 $250
Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
2 Customer costs refect gross incremental measure cost unless otherwise noted
Utilty DSM Program Review
Table 2-49 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2-49. Prescriptive ECM DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Notes Reference
Available
Yes Avista $10/motor new applications; $90/motor retrofit applications Avista, 2006
(35W motor size); other incentives for 6 to 25 W units._~---~-_..-._----_..._..__.._. .....-..--_......----_.._-------
No ETO ETO,2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E $20/motor PG&E,2006
Yes PSE $0.121saft up to 50% of incremental costs - AHU applications PSE,2oo6
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006_.----.._----_.__....-...._._._._--_.._--_._..__._.._----_........__....__..._._---_..__...__._---_.__.............._--'-...........-------
Yes APS $10/motor APS,2006
Code Review
DOE is initiating a proposed energy efficient test procedure and standard for small electric
motors. However, small motors wil not cover shaded pole (SP), permanent split capacitor (PSC)
2-48 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhanceents ~Ne
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
motors, or ECMs because they do not meet NEMA pedormance requirements for general
purose motors, specifically the torque requirements. Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006
includes minimum effciency requirements for affected motor sizes and tyes. As a reference, in
2008 ECMs with a minimum efficiency of 70% wil be required for all walk-in
refrigeration/freezer fans in California, including all condenser, compressor, and evaporator fans.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-50 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
ECMs in Idaho.
Table 2.50. ECM Measure Vendors and Contact Information
Vendor/Manufacturer
D&S Electrical Supply
Johnstone Supply Store
RSD Total Control
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
(208) 232-606
Jim Magana from the GE Supply Store in Renton, Washington provided valuable information
regarding the market for ECMs and the cost of both SP and ECM motors (Magana, 2006). The
two main markets for ECMs are refrigeration and HV AC systems. Most refrgeration ECM
applications are replacements for SP motors that result in a 50% increase in effciency at an
incremental cost of $40-$50. HV AC applications for ECMs are usually the replacement of the
fan motor within an AH for which result in a 20% to 30% effciency increase.
Prescriptive Recommendation
Based on the availability of prescriptive incentives from other utilties and appropriate deemed
cost and savings values, it is recommended that ECMs be considered for inclusion within the
prescriptive delivery component of the FinAnswer Express program. Additional information on
appropriate baseline, minimum effciency, costs, savings, and incentives is provided below.
Measure Baseline
The standad motor tye for this application is a shaded pole (SP) motor. Table 2-51 contains the
baseline annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for ECM equivalent SP motors.
Table 2.51. ECM Measure Baseline Characteristics
Measure Annual Energ¥Demand1 Cost1Consumption
Shaded Pole (SP) motor,18 kWhlW 0.002kWIW $1.22/Refrigeration applications
Shaded Pole (SP) motor,3,508 kWhlHP 0.800 kW/HP $40.00/HPHVAC applications
1 Energy consumption, demand, and cost reflect gross values.
~M!nr 2006 FinAnswe~ Expres Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-49
.
.
.
Measure Information Sectin 2
Minimum Effciency Requirements
Any ECM up to 1 HP in size wil meet the minimum effciency requirements to qualify for an
incentive, including both retrofit and new constrction installations. Table 2-52 contains the
estimated annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for these two different ECM
applications.
Table 2.52. ECM Minimum Efficiency Requirements 1
Measure Annual Energy Demand CostConsumption
ECM-8.7kWhlW 0.001 kWIW $ 2.22/Refrigeration applications
ECM-613 kWh/HP 0.140 kW/HP $440.00/HPHVAC applications
1 Energy consumption, demand, and costs reflect gross values.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Table 2-53 summarizes the estimated incremental measure costs and savings for potential
prescriptive ECM measures.
Table 2.53. ECM Unit Measure Cost and Savings1, 2
Gross Net
Measure Incremental Demand Annual Incremental Demand Annual
Customer Savings Energy Customer Savings Energy
Cost Savings Cost Savings
ECM-i
Refrigeration $1.001W 0.001 kWIW 9.3kWhlW $0.961W 0.001 kWIW 8.9kWhIW
applications _....._-_.-.__._--.-------_._-_........._._------._-----_.-_.-----_...--------~-
ECM-
HVAC $400/HP 0.660kW/HP 2895kWh/HP $ 384/HP 0.634kW/HP 2779kWh/HP
applications
1 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter.
2 Net cost, demand, and energy savings assume an estmated Net to Gross (NTG) rati of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Incentive Levels
Proposed incentive levels are shown in Table 2-54.
Table 2.54. ECM Proposed Incentive Levels
Measure Application Type Incentive
ECM Refrigeration $0.501W
ECM HVAC $50/HP
2-50 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Progam Enhancements t1Ne
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibilty to allow customer
assignent of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Equipment
vendors and installers would be invited to join the curent HV AC or Motor Trade Ally network.
Table 2-55 includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2.55. ECM Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Yes - existing HVAC and Motor networks......_...___....~~_._.~_._M._.._.._._.__....._._---_.~_._.._...-......._...__..............._..__.._-_......................._.-
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process Incorprate measure into current HVAC and
revised motor application...._..................._-_._......................................_.._........----------------_._---_._-.----------------_._._------------_.------------------._-.----------------
Incentive See Table 2-54
Reported Costs Deemed based on project - see Table 2-53
Reported Savings Deemed based on project - see Table 2-53
~Ne 2006 FinAnswef' Expres Maret Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-51
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
2.12 PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS
Measure Description
Prescriptive incentives for premium efficiency motors are a key component of PacifiCorp' s
FinAswer Express program. Schedule 115 includes prescriptive incentive levels for a wide
variety ofNEMA premium efficiency motors from 1 to 200 hp. Cost, savings, and incentive
levels were reviewed for appropriateness for this measure.
Measure/Technology Review
Each of the primary resources provided data for motors with the exception of Energy Star.
Premium efficiency motors are a matue technology and a wealth of information exists on the
measure. A summary of the key resources is included in Table 2-56 below.
Table 2.56. Review of Motor Measure Information
Measure
Information Resource Notes
Available
Yes Ecotope 2003 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes PG&E2003 Savings and costs for common motor retrfis
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study........._._.__.._.._....-....__...._._...._._._-_.._----_._-------_.._---------_.__._--...__.---._--_.-----------------------_.----------------------_._---_._._---_..._._-------------------_.-.-.----------------------_.__._._..-.-------------_._--_.._..----.---------------
Yes Xcel Energy 2006 Program level savings and cost estimates for high-effciency motors
Yes Quantec 2005 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes DEER Savings and costs for common motor retrofis---..........._.................._.....__._..__._.....~.._..._-_..----_...._.............-......._.._......._--_..................................~-_............
Yes KEMA200 Motor savings and costs included in comprehensive potential study
Yes CEE Industrial motor effciency initiative
No Energy Star i
Yes RTF Savings and costs for common motor retrofis
Yes NPCC2005 Market information and overiew of savings potential......................._..-.__.....................................................---_.._-----_._.__._...-_.._.........................._..-.__..._..~_..__......_-_._.........-._._............-...-....._....__...._._..-
Yes NEMA2002 Minimum effciency levels for premium effciency motors
Yes MotorMaster+Comprehensive resource of motor effciencies, costs, and tools to calculate
savings
Utity DSM Program Review
Prescriptive motor incentives are curently available from four of the six primary utilities
reviewed, although PG&E's program provides incentives upstream to motor distrbutors rather
than directly to customers. All programs use the same minimum effciency requirements as the
FinAswer Express program. Table 2-57 and Table 2-58 provide an overview these programs.
2-52 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements ØNetI
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.57. Prescriptive Motor Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Notes Reference
Available
Yes Avista Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 Avista, 2006
Yes ETO Representative incentives show in Table 2-58 ETO, 2006 .........._......-......_-_..................__.._----""....................._............................~.................................._........_..........................__......-.....__..................................................__.............._..._._-_................................._------_.
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
Yes PG&E Up-strm incentives for motor distributors PG&E, 2006
No PSE PSE,2006_._--_........~...~._......................_..........................__..__._---_.....................__...__..._.._..__.----_....__._-_..........................__..........................._-..__.......~..........._._._-....
Yes Xcel Energy Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 Xcel,2006
Yes Motor Up Representative incentives shown in Table 2-58 Motor Up 2006
Table 2.58. Prescriptive Motor Incentive Levels ($/motor) 1
FinAnswer
Express1 $45 $10 $10 $10 $501.5 $45 $15 $10 $15 $502 $54 $20 $10 $20 $603 $54 $30 $20 $25 $605 $54 $50 $20 $35 $60-.._.....-._...._._......._.....-..-..._-..-_.._--_.._----_.._.._---_.--_.._._-_..._._._...._-_...._._.._-_......_.._-------_..__._..--_..---_.._--_.._.._--_..__.._.._....---_......_------_...._-_....---.-..--_.._---_.._-_.__._..........--_...._._--_..__....-_...--..--------7.5 $81 $75 $30 $50 $9010 $90 $100 $50 $65 $10015 $104 $150 $50 $75 $115- ~............_................ .....~.~.._-_..._-_...._....._.._..._........__._-_....._..............._---_.._._.......20 $113 $200 $10 $100 $12525 $117 $250 $70 $125 $13030 $135 $300 $80 $150 $15040 $162 $400 $100 $200 $18050 $198 $500 $170 $250 $220---_......_-...-._..........-...-_.._--_.._.._---_.._-_...._......_-_.._----_.._.......--...._--_.._-_......_.........-.._-_..__............-_....--_........--.----_.._-_.60 $234 $600 $170 $300 $26075 $270 $750 $90 $350 $300100 $360 $1,000 $90 $450 $400f.----- --....---..--.... .-------..---.-------..-----..-....---------..-----.-.--....----125 $540 $1,250 $260 $500 $600150 $630 $1,500 $270 $550 $700200 $630 $2,00 $420 $600 $700
HP ETO Avista Xcel Energy Motor Up
1 Incentives for 1800 rpm TEFC motors
Code Review
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set federal minimum motor effciency levels. Neither IECC 2003
nor IECC 2006 includes minimum efficiency levels for motors.
Measure Vendors
PacifiCorp's FinAnswer Express program is curently supported by approximately 10 motor
contractors and distrbutors through the Motor Energy Effciency Allance. A curent listing,
IíNenr 2006 FinAnsweie Express Market Charactenzation and Prora Enhancements 2-53
.Measure Infoation Section 2
including complete contact information of these alles, is available though the program's web
site.
Prescriptive Recommendation
It is recommended that prescriptive incentives for premium efficiency motors continued to be
offered under the FinAnswer Express program.
Measure Baseline
Federal minimum effciency levels for motors have not changed since the last program update
and no change to the curent baseline efficiencies is recommended.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
NEMA Premium Effciency motor levels continue to be industr standard for minimum
effciency levels for incentives. While NEMA does include minimum efficiency requirements for
motors up to 500 hp, few programs provide prescriptive incentives for motors above 200 hp. Due
to the wide varation in costs and savings for motors larger than 200 hp, it is recommended that
PacifiCorp continue to process high-effciency motors larger than 200 hp through the custom
path of FinAswer Express or Energy FinAnswer. Savings and incentive calculations using
MotorMaster+ (as is curently used for custom projects in FinAswer Express) is a quick and
. easy approach for these measures.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Estimates of incremental customer costs associated with premium efficiency motors continue to
var widely. Incremental customer costs are cited by numerous references as having little
correlation to horsepower and effciency. It is suspected that this is due to manufactter
discounts and various market conditions that may influence discounts and pricing on a monthly
basis. Table 2-59 ilustrates the wide range in incremental cost estimates. As curent estimates of
incremental customer costs were derived from MotorMaster+, it is recommended that estimates
be updated with revised cost estimates from MotorMaster+.
.
2-54 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characteriation and Progra Enhancements tJMlnr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.59. Incremental Motor Costs ($/motor) 1
HP FinAnswer PG&E (2003)DEER Motor Up MotorMaster+Express
1 $43.20 -$18.00 $30.98 $8.00 -$36.00
1.5 $47.50 -$15.00 $40.13 $118.00 $90.00........................_.........................._.........-_............_.__...........................................__......................__._--_...................._------.........................__........_...-_._-_..........__......................._--_.__........._.....
2 $42.67 -$29.00 $49.29 $63.00 $96.00
3 $53.33 -$11.00 $67.61 $89.00 $42.00
5 $59.50 -$20.00 $104.24 $71.00 $52.00...__.__.__..........._...~...................................................................._-_........._._......_...................._..__...---_......_...._..............._.._-_.~_............._......__......~...-
7.5 $59.17 -$16.00 $134.86 $248.00 $72.00
10 $94.00 -$25.00 $300.20 $384.00 $96.00
15 $120.33 -$49.00 $292.02 $246.00 $119.00
20 $128.50 $11.00 $254.43 $614.00 -$22.00
25 $175.33 $304.00 ($3.53)$586.00 $237.00............................................................._..................._.._--_......................._......._.............._.._..._._--_......._._........._._--_._..._.._---_._._-..._-_..................."................-
30 $162.17 $191.00 $95.94 $805.00 $223.00
40 $344.33 $489.00 $294.91 $669.00 $516.00
50 $337.83 $322.00 $493.91 $775.00 $398.00.._......_....._.........................................._.._._........_..._._............._..........._.._.._.._.._..............._._._.............._....___..._.._........_........_..........-_._.._...................._._.._.-0_....._
60 $293.83 $428.00 $585.11 $576.00 $270.00
75 $278.83 $773.00 $579.62 $1,534.00 $36.00
100 $464.50 $1,203.00 $570.47 $1,667.00 $130.00
125 $571.50 $1,070.00 $561.32 $1,392.00 $1,153.00
150 $498.00 $2,408.00 $457.36 $222.00 $657.00.._............_._._..................................__.._--------_..__._-_.__._._.._._----_._.__........-..._....-..--_.........__.._.._..__._........._....._-_.._..........................._-------_..
200 $961.17 $3,406.00 $2,050.13 $558.00 $624.00
1 Where costs varied, values shown are for 1800 rpm TEFC motors.
Table 2-60 and Table 2-61 summarize curent energy and demand savings estimates,
respectively, for the FinAswer Express program and others. With the exception of savings
estimates from the Energy Trust of Oregon, there is good agreement on savings values for
smaller motors. However, on larger motors some savings assume a baseline efficiency that is
significantly less than code, based on the assumption that the motors would have been rewound
instead of replaced. Based on a review of motors submitted under the FinAswer Express
program to date, over half oflarge motors (:: 100 hp) were identified as new, not replacement
units. Furher conversations with participating motor alles indicate that customers purchasing
large replacement motors under the program are generally not doing so in lieu of rewinding
existing equipment. For these reasons, no adjustments to the curent deemed savings estimates
under the progrm are recommended at this time.
tlJl 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancements 2-55
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2.60. Estimated Annual Energy Savings (kWh/motor) 1,2
HP FlnAnswer PG&E (2003)DEER ETOExpress
1 97 112 49 547
1.5 95 136 660
--_..........-....-..._-._-...._-----_.._-........_.......................m..................._____..__.............._....._.______..................................__.__................,_._-_........................__...._-_................-
2 106 181 563
3 143 306 1,533
5 192 336 148 1,719.._---_._._...._--_._._.._--......._......_......__....~............_._........__.._...._.,_..............,....._..._......_..-_..~.._..._......_...._------_._...................._.._-_.-
7.5 349 612 2,340
10 443 705 311 2,957
15 493 932 290 4,998
20 718 1,243 746 3,705
25 1,054 5,155 547 5,605
----_._._.__._-_._......._.................................,..._--_........................._......__............._..........._---_..............._......--_......................,......__........._..._-----
30 1,334 6,324 6,055
40 1,458 7,477 7,968
50 1,994 9,938 1,346 5,974..._._.._-_.._..........__........_--.....------_......_--_...-.._....-..._.._----_...._-----_..-.......-----.._-_...._--_........._-_.............-.-...-----_.._---_...._._.._--
60 2,036 10,009 7,501
75 2,344 12,266 12,449
100 3,103 15,246 1,575 15,053
125 5,633 20,673 19,693
150 5,862 21,718 2,080 20,265------------.h...Mh..........._...........~~____.__...._........__.._~.._.....__.__...............__........---
200 7,403 28,958 3,255 20,156
1 Savings are for 1800 rpm TEFC motors
2 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
2-56 2006 FinAnswei0 Express Market Characteriation and Program Enhancements tJNeti
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.61. Estimated Peak Demand Savings (kW/motor) 1,2
HP FinAnswer PG&E (2003)DEER ETOExpress
1 0.036 0.02 0.02 0.09
1.5 0.035 0.02 0.01
......................................................................-_................................................._--_.__......-..........................__................................-_...._--_......_....._..............................__................_........................
2 0.039 0.03 0.09
3 0.052 0.05 0.24
5 0.070 0.05 0.07 0.27.................._............................._--.............._.................................._.........................................__.._----_..........................._....__.......................................__._.__....._............
7.5 0.109 0.10 0.37
10 0.138 0.11 0.15 0.47
15 0.154 0.15 0.14 0.79
20 0.224 0.20 0.26 0.58
25 0.291 0.81 0.19 0.88
_._........._..........................................___.._...._....._..._........___~_.._......_._.._.....__.__.ä.h........_.._._-----_._.......................__......__.._.._.._.............-.--
30 0.368 1.00 0.95
40 0.402 1.18 1.25
50 0.550 1.56 0.47 0.94
.-.............._................................._--.................._.................................u......__......___....._........._.._.._.._...h~...._......_._....___.._................._..--~---~--_._............._.
60 0.437 1.58 1.18
75 0.503 1.93 1.96
100 0.666 2.40 0.55 2.37
125 1.133 3.25 3.10
150 1.179 3.42 0.73 3.19
-_..._-'"._...._._.......--...-.-----_..__.._-----_..-___..........._................._.___..........__.._.......__._..._...__..__...._____.___.__..._..._._.....___..._..___........._no_
200 1.489 4.56 1.45 3.17
1 Savings are for 1800 rpm TEFC motors
2 Savings values reflect gross savings at the customer meter
Incentive Levels
No changes in curent incentive levels are recommended as curent incentive levels for premium
effciency motors are within the range offered by similar utility programs (see Table 2-58).
Delivery Mechanism
A surey of the top motor vendors in the Utah market (both curent participating alles and non-
partcipants) indicates that significant additional progrm paricipation is achievable by
modifying the curent point-of-purchase delivery modeL. Specifically, Nexant contacted six
motor vendors in Utah and five motor vendors in Washington. Table 2-62 lists the vendors
contacted, and Appendix D contains their individual blinded surey responses.
tlNenr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2.57
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2.62. Motor Vendor Survey List
Utah Vendors Washington Vendors
Applied Industrial Technologies Applied Industrial Technologies
Dykman Electrical Dykman Electcal
Energy Management Corporation Grainger
Grainger H&N Electric
Kaman Industrial Technologies Schaefer Refrgeration
Motion Industries
By changing to a post-purchase incentive mechanism akin to the curent model used for unitar
equipment, additional vendors have stated a wilingness to support the program. The more
flexible natue of this approach would stil allow vendors to continue offering their customers the
incentives at the point of sale if they choose by having the customer assign the incentives to
them on the application form.
The primar drvers behind this modification are:
· To allow motor dealers that were unable to meet the requirements of the curent program
(e.g. crediting incentives directly on customer purchase orders) due to corporate policies
· To captue markets served by vendors that refused to sign the Motor Alliance Agreement
due to conflcts with the terms and conditions of the agreement
· To engage dealers that did not want to be responsible for program paperwork and hence
chose not to promote the program to their customers
2.58 (: Ne2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
2.13 SOLID DOOR REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS
Measure Description
Commercial refrgerators and freezers are commonly found in restaurnts and other food service
industries. Reach in, solid door refrigerators and freezers are significantly more effcient than
regular refrigerators and freezers due to better insulation and higher efficiency components.
There are recognized high-effciency designations, Tier 1 or Tier 2, for these tyes of
refrigerators and freezers, which relate the volume of the appliance to its daily energy
consumption. Tier 1 corresponds to Energy Star minimum effciency levels while Tier 2 is the
minimum effciency level set by the Consortium for Energy Effciency (CEE). Tier 2
refrigerators and freezers are 40% and 30% more effcient than Tier 1 refrgerators and freezers
respectively. The three most common size refrigerators and freezers, one, two and three door, at
both Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels, were analyzed for this report.
Measure/Technology Review
Five primary resources contained data for solid door refrigerators and freezers. The Energy Star
web site contained energy savings calculators for Tier 1 level refrigerators and freezers, while
CEE had information for both Tier i and Tier 2. The NPCC report and Ecotope studies gave
savings and cost estimates, but did not include the volume of the appliances. NYSERDA's
deemed savings and cost database (Nexant 2005) contained data for both refrgerators and
freezers at both Tier levels at three common sizes. The values from these studies for incremental
costs and energy and demand savings are given in Table 2-63 below.
~....200 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-59
.
.
.
Measure Informtion Section 2
Table 2.63. Review of Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Measure Information
Measure Annual Demand Incremental
Information Resource Type Size Energy Savings1 Cost 2
(fe)Savings1Available(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 Reach-in Refrigerator N/A 2619 0.30 $400
No PG&E2003
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006._........_.~_...._..___".._~....................__......______..........n..............;.........h.................._..._................._.........__..........................................____.___................_.........................._......_--_....._...................._-_........._......_-_.....
No Quantec 2005
No DEER
No KEMA2006..._______....__.._._..._.__........_.._..._._.........___.__...._.__....._.__...........u.................___....._........._...___.........._.........__...............___..__u.h...h.__.............._...~___...__.._
T1 Refrgerator 24 482 5-8%
T1 Refrgerator 48 1577 5-8%
T2 Refrgerator 24 1132 5-8%
T2 Refrigerator 48 1701 5-8%
Yes CEE T1 Freezer 24 311 15%
T1 Freezer 48 294 15%
T2 Freezer 24 1512 15%
T2 Freezer 48 2546 15%u____.u..._ri........._____....._._..._.~_.__._._...____....__.._~..._..___...____.._________...__....................__........___..._..........__..........................___...._..._..-.--.---.-----.......
T1 Refrigerator 43.5 1967 0.22 $197YesEnergy Star
T1 Freezer 22.7 1383 0.16 $139
No RTF
Yes NPCC2005 Refrgerator N/A 3004 0.34 $432
Freezer N/A 3915 0.45 $388--_....._.__..._._._-_.__......_-_.._....__._---~---_....._..--....._......._..._.............._............._...._---_..._._.............._--_............-~---_.__.......
T1 Refrigerator 24 561 0.06 $200
T1 Refrigerator 48 823 0.09 $250
T1 Refrgerator 72 1086 0.12 $300
T2 Refrgerator 24 1183 0.14 $200
T2 Refrgerator 48 1778 0.20 $250
Yes T2 Refrgerator 72 2374 0.27 $300Nexant2005
T1 Freezer 24 508 0.06 $200
T1 Freezer 48 665 0.08 $250
T1 Freezer 72 823 0.09 $300
T2 Freezer 24 1655 0.19 $200
T2 Freezer 48 2811 0.32 $250
T2 Freezer 72 3968 0.45 $300
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Utilty DSM Program Review
Table 2-64 contains current prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
øNe2-60 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Progm Enhancements
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Inforation
Table 2.64 Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive IncentiveIncentiveUtiltyTypeSize($/unit)Reference
Available
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO,2006
------_.....................................................-..............................................._........_............................................_............................................__..........._...__.._................................................__..............................................
T1 Refrigerator 1 door $30
T1 Refrigerator 2 door $40
T1 Refrigerator 3 door $50
T2 Refrigerator 1 door $125
Yes PSE T2 Refrigerator 2 door $150 PSE,2oo6
T2 Refrigerator 3 door $175
T2 Freezer 1 door $150
T2 Freezer 2 door $175
T2 Freezer 3 door $200
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 200
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006.._-_............_..._........................................._.._............................_........_...................__.__._._._..............................................__.__..._-......._._-_......._..__................._~~~-
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
Yes Tacoma Power Proram matches PSE offring Tacoma Power, 200
T2 Refrigerator c: 19fiJ $75
T2 Refrigerator 19-30 fiJ $100
T2 Refrgerator 31-60 fe $150
T2 Refrgerator 61-90 fe $225 NYSERDA, 200YesNYSERDA
T2 Freezer c: 19fe $100
T2 Freezer 19-30 fe $200
T2 Freezer 31-60 fe $325
T2 Freezer 61-90 ft3 $500
Code Review
Curent federal minimum effciency levels for solid door refrgerators and freezers are shown in
Table 2-65. Also included are the minimum efficiencies levels for the Energy Star Tier 1 and
CEE Tier 2 specifications.
Table 2.65. Solid Door Refrigerator and Freezer Effciency Levels
Maximum Daily
Equipment Type Tier Level Energy Consumption 1
(kWh/day)
Refrigerator Baseline 0.125*V + 2.76
Refrigerator Tier 1 0.1*V + 2.04
Refrigerator Tier 2 0.06*V + 1.22
Freezer Baseline 0.398*V + 2.28
Freezer Tier 1 O.4*V + 1.38
Freezer Tier 2 0.28*V + 0.97
1 V is the volume of the refrigerator or freezer in cubic feet
~ivtlnr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-61
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
New federal minimum effciency standards for solid door refrgerators and freezers wil become
effective January 1,2010 (EPACT 2005). The new standards wil make Tier i the baseline
effciency level for all solid door refrigerators and freezers.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-66 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
high-effciency solid door refrgerators in Idaho.
Table 2.66. Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
Ward HVACR
Industrial Ventiation Inc.
Kelly Mincks
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to tr to increase the penetration rates of solid door refrigerator and freezers,
incorporation of a prescriptive incentive for qualifying products in the FinAswer Express
program is recommended. Additional details regarding this recommendation are provided below.
Measure Baseline
The standard refrigerator/freezer effciency is based on Table 2-65. Table 2-67 contains the
baseline anual energy consumption, demand, and cost for solid door refrgerators and freezers.
Table 2.67. Baseline Solid Door Refrigerator and Freezer Measure Information
Annual
Type Size Range Energy Demand1 Cose
(cubicft)Consumption 1 (kW/unit)($/unit)
(kWh/unit)
Solid Door Refrigerator ~30 2102 0.24 $700
Solid Door Refrigerator 31 - 60 3197 0.37 $1,000
Solid Door Refrgerator ~ 61 4292 0.49 $1,300
Soid Door Freezer ~30 4319 0.49 $2,300
Solid Door Freezer 31 - 60 7805 0.89 $2,600
Solid Doo Freezer :: 61 11292 1.29 $2,900
1 Savings represent gross savings at meter
2 Costs are gross customer costs
Minimum Effciency Requirements
To qualify for prescriptive incentives, new solid door refrgerators and freezers wil need to meet
Tier 1 minimum efficiency requirements. A second tier incentive is suggested for equipment that
meets Tier 2 minimum effciency requirements. Table 2-68 summarizes the estimated
performance and cost information for qualifying units.
2-62 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterizaton and Proram Enhancements ØNetlnT
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.68. Qualifying Solid Door Refrigerator and Freezer Measure Information
Annual
Type Size Range Energy Demand1 Cose
(cubic ft)Consumption 1 (kW/unit)($/unit)
(kWh/unit)
T1 Solid Door Refrigerator ~30 1542 0.176 $756
T1 Solid Door Refrgerator 31 - 60 2374 0.271 $1,080
T1 Solid Dor Refrgerator ;. 61 3206 0.366 $1,404
T2 Solid Dor Refrigerator ~30 920 0.105 $805
T2 Solid Door Refrigerator 31 - 60 1419 0.162 $1,150
T2 Solid Door Refrigerator ;. 61 1918 0.219 $1,495
T1 Solid Door Freezer ~30 3811 0.435 $2,484
T1 Solid Door Freezer 31 - 60 7139 0.815 $2,808
T1 Solid Door Freezer ;. 61 10468 1.195 $3,132
T2 Solid Door Freezer ~30 2663 0.304 $2,645
T2 Solid Door Freezer 31 - 60 4993 0.57 $2,990
T2 Solid Door Freezer ;. 61 7323 0.836 $3,335
1 Savings represent gross savings at meter
2 Costs are gross customer costs
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Deemed measure costs and savings for qualifying solid door refrigerators and freezers are
presented in Table 2-69.
Table 2.69. Deemed Cost and Savings Information for Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
Gross Net
Size Annual AnnualTypeRangeEnergyDemandIncrementalEnergy Demand Incremental
(ft3)Savings1 Savings1 Cose Savings1 Savings1 Cose
(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)
T1 Refrigerator ~30 561 0.06 $56 538 0.06 $54
T1 Refrigerator 31 - 60 823 0.09 $80 791 0.09 $77
T1 Refrigerator ~61 1086 0.12 $104 1043 0.12 $100"~~----~--'..'.~-_._..._...---_...._..._._-_._-~.._.__._.-.._.....
T2 Refrgerator ~30 1183 0.14 $105 1135 0.13 $101
T2 Refrigerator 31 -60 1778 0.20 $150 1707 0.19 $144
T2 Refrigerator ;. 61 2374 0.27 $195 2279 0.26 $187
T1 Freezer ~30 508 0.06 $184 488 0.06 $177
T1 Freezer 31.60 666 0.08 $208 639 0.07 $200
T1 Freezer ;. 61 823 0.09 $232 791 0.09 $223
T2 Freezer ~30 1656 0.19 $345 1589 0.18 $331
T2 Freezer 31.60 2812 0.32 $390 2699 0.31 $374
T2 Freezer ;. 61 3968 0.45 $435 3810 0.43 $418
1 Savings represent values at the meter
t1 Mi 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characteriation and Program Enhancements 2-63
.Measure Information Section 2
Incentive Levels
Proposed incentive levels for solid door refrgerator and freezer are equal to the levels used by
Puget Sound Energy and are summarized in Table 2-70.
Table 2.70. Proposed Incentive Levels
Measure Size Range Incentive
(fe)($/appliance)
T1 Refrigerator ~30 $30
T1 Refrigerator 31 - 60 $40
T1 Refrigerator ? 61 $50.................-........_....................._---_._----_.,,"',_._-"--,,_..._....................__....................__......................._-_...........................-..............._-
T2 Refrigerator ~30 $125
T2 Refrgerator 31 - 60 $150
T2 Refrigerator ~ 61 $175
T1 Freezer ~30 $30
T1 Freezer 31 - 60 $40
T1 Freezer ~ 61 $50
T2 Freezer ~30 $150
T2 Freezer 31 -60 $175
T2 Freezer ~ 61 $200
. Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Iriitially,
Nexant does not recommend the creation of a new formal trade ally network of refrgeration
equipment vendors and installation contractors due to the associated costs, although initial
outreach and coordination with market actors wil be necessary. Key steps involved in this
process may include:
· Identification of key vendors in addition to those listed in Table 2-66
· Holding an initial informational meeting with interested paries to answer questions and
distrbute application materials
· Maintaining an informal listing of interested vendors for distrbution of occasional
updates and or program modifications
.
When the application and savings volume increases to a sufficient level, or as more refrgeration
measures are added in the futue, a formal trade ally network may be established. Table 2-71
includes a sumary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
2-6 2006 FinAnswerß Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNØ
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Inforation
Table 2.71. Solid Door Refrigerator/Freezer Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Not initially..._--_....._..._.............._-_.....~....._.......................--..__..........................................._-_._.................__......................................_-_............_....
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process New refrigerator/freezer application
Incentive See Table 2-70
Reported Costs Deemed based on project - see Table 2-69
Reported Savings Deemed based on project - see Table 2-69
~Mínr 2-652006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements
.
.
.
Measure Information Sectíon2
2.14 COOL ROOFS
Measure Description
Cool roofs include a varety of paints, coatings, tiles and other materials applied to roof surfaces
that reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by a facility's roof. Cool roofing materials
have high solar reflectance and high radiative emittance that reduce solar gain to the roof and
subsequently reduce the cooling load for the space; however, heating loads can be increased.
Roof insulation also plays a role in determining the heating and cooling loads and must be
considered as well. Roof insulation levels should meet applicable code requirements to fuer
reduce cooling and heating energy consumption. Analysis efforts concentrated on increased
reflectance and emittance for applications with code-compliant insulation levels.
Measure/Technology Review
While several of the primary resources reviewed discussed cool roofs, only a select few
contained detailed cost and savings information. Table 2-72 and Table 2-73 include a sumary
of the key findings. Where presented, cost information represents the incremental cost to install a
cool roof at the time of normal roof replacement or constrction.
Table 2.72. Review of Cool Roof Measure Information
Measure
Information Resource Notes
Available
No Ecotope 2003 Reviewed as an emerging technology, but not summarized in report
Yes PG&E2003 Cost and savings for light colored rof applications ,
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006nm.n__.....__.____ri_._..ri.m._.mri.........ri..........._.___._.._.__....m.._.....__.___.--.------_._------_..__..._._-_.._._----------------...-----_..__.._....._-.-......_-
Reflective and Spray Evaporative Cool Roofs included in market level savings
Yes Quantec 2005 potential study, but detailed information on key assumptions was not provided
in the report
Incremental cost and savings for a variety of building types in each of
DEER California's 14 climate zones; incremental cost data for 0.8 to 0.45 roof
absorptivity change
Savings from COO Roof installations in facilities with either Chiler and OX
Yes KEMA2oo6 cooling equipment included in market level savings potential study, but
detailed information on key assumptions was not provided in the report
No CEE No primary data on Cool Roofs
Specifications and labeling for Cool Roof products; for low slop roofs, initial
Yes Energy Star solar reflectance ~ 0.65 and must be ~ 0.50 after three years; for steep slope
roofs, initial soar reflectnce ~ 0.25 and must be ~ 0.15 after three years; for
steep slope rofs. Also includes link to rough savings calculator...__.._--_._...._......__..._.ri.....riri..ri..................._.._ri.......__'-__________.._.......ri_______ri..ri_.._________..___."...._._..__..........ri_..ri..__~
No RTF
No NPCC2005
Yes DOE Cool Roof 2006 Savings calculator for Cool Roofs that includes inputs for heating and cooling
equipment effciencies. insulation levels, and reflectance/emittance levels
2-66 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements ø Ne .
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.73. Cool Roof Savings and Cost Information1
Description
Annual Energy
Savings2
(kWh-yrlsqft)
0.33
0.63
0.33
0.50
Demand
Savings2
(W/sqft)
0.23
0.43
0.46
0.30
$0.35
$0.35
$0.67
$0.32
KEMA2006
KEMA2006
DEER
PG&E2003
Incremental Cost
($/sqft)Reference
Cool Roof in facilty with chiler
Cool Roof in facility with DX cooling
Cool roof (0.8 to 0.45 absorptivity) 3
Cool roo
1 Heating penalties associated with Cool Roofs average $0.02lsqftyr across PacifiCorp's service terrtory assuming
$0.80/therm gas costs (DOE COO Roofs, 2006)
2 Savings are gross savings at the meter
3 Savings are from a representative large offce building in San Diego
Utility DSM Program Review
Table 2-74 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
Table 2.74 Cool Roof Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive Minimum Minimum IncentiveIncentiveUtiltyReflectivityEmittance($/sqft)Notes Reference
Available
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO,2006
No PSE PSE,2006-----------------_._---_...-..__._......_......._-_._---.---------------------_...-._.._--------------------_...-.._---------------.---------------_._---._-----------------------_._---_..._.-.------------_._----
New
Yes Idaho Power 0.65 None $0.05 construction Idaho Power, 2006
only
$0.198 to Combination
Yes Xcel Energy 0.85 (Energy None $0.370 Cool Roofs Xcel Energy, 2006Star)depending on and insulation
ô R value upgrade
No PG&E PG&E,2006
~üü.m............._...............___._.~....__......._...__....______...._...--.--.---------_.__._----.~--...----~_.._.-._-----_......----.--~--
Yes Austin 0.75 None $0.15 Austin Energy,
Energy 2006
Yes Progress 0.65 None $0.50 $1,000 Progress Energy,
Energy incentive cap 2006
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 establishes minimum roofing reflectivity levels, although as
a point of reference, California's Title 24 does include cool roof specifications and requirements.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-75 contains contact information for thee equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
cool roof materials in Idaho.
ttNé 2006 FinAnsw~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-67
.
.
.
Measure Infoation Section 2
Table 2.75. Cool Roof Vendors and Contact Information
Vendor/Manufacturer
Thomas D. Robinson Roofing Inc.
Pocatello Roofing Inc.
Smith Roofing
Phone Number
(208) 785-626
[phone]
[phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to tr to increase the penetration rates of cool roof products, incorporation of a
prescriptive incentive for qualifying cool roof products in the Finswer Express program is
recommended. However, based on the complex interaction between roof insulation, heating and
cooling equipment, and characteristics of the cool roof product, savings estimates should be
calculated for submitted projects using the simplified calculation tool developed by Nexant in
2005. Application and marketing materials developed and distrbuted for this measure should
also include a disclosure on the potential heating penalties that customers may incur. Additional
details are provided below.
Measure Baseline
Baseline data for savings calculations should be taken from existing roofing constrction details.
For new constrction projects, inputs into the simplified savings calculation tool should reflect a
code compliant building shell or the proposed baseline system, if available.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
Cool roof material shall be labeled under the Energy Star Reflective Roof Products category.
Incentives wil only be available for spaces with mechanical cooling. In addition, as ,part of the
application process, participants shall be required to submit the following:
· A copy of the invoice for the reflective roof product and its installation
· A copy of the manufactuer's waranty statements
· A copy of the manufactuer's product information
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Estimated deemed gross incremental measures costs of $0.35/sqft wil be used (KEMA 2006).
Savings for completed projects wil be calculated using the simplified approach on a case-by-
case basis. For the puroses of forecasting and evaluating measure cost effectiveness, a gross
anual energy savings and peak demand savings of 0.13 kWhsqft/yr and 0.23 W/sqft wil be
used.
Incentive Levels
Recommended incentive levels for qualifying installations of cool roof materials is $0.1 O/sqft.
2-68 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Markel Characerization and Program Enhancments t.Nenr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Initially,
Nexant does not recommend the creation of a new formal trde ally network of equipment
vendors and installation contrctors due to the associated costs, although initial outreach and
coordination with market actors wil be necessar. Key steps involved in this process may
include:
· Identification of key vendors in addition to those listed in Table 2-75
· Holding an initial informational meeting with interested parties to answer questions and
distrbute application materials
· Maintaining an informal listing of interested vendors for distrbution of occasional
updates and or program modifications
When the application and savings volume increases to a sufficient level, a formal trade ally
network may be established. Table 2-76 includes a sumary of the key program delivery
mechanism characteristics.
Table 2-76. Cool Roof Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network Not initially
Pre-Purcase Agreement No
Application Procss New cool roof application
Incentive $0. 1 O/sqft ._.__............---_._-_.._----------_..__.....-.--...__.._--_._........---_._--_.__._..._-----
Reported Costs Deemed based on project
Reported Savings Deemed based on projec
lílVnT 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characteriation and Program Enhancements 2-69
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
2.15 PLUG LOAD OCCUPANCY SENSORS
Measure Description
Plug load occupancy sensors are devices that control low wattage devices (-:150 watts) using an
occupancy sensor. Common applications are computer monitors, desk lamps, printers, and other
desktop equipment. Three size tiers were analyzed based on available products in the market: 25,
50, and 150 watt.
Measure/Technology Review
Four resources contained information on plug load occupancy sensors. The costs, energy
savings, and amount of equipment controlled per sensor varied widely. The values for
incremental costs and energy and demand savings are given in Table 2-77 below.
Table 2.77. Review of Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Measure Information
Measure Annual Demand Incremental
Information Resource Type Size Energy Savings1 Cost 2
Savings1Available(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)
No Ecotope 2003
Yes PG&E2003 Plug load occupancy 150 300 0.124 $20.00sensor......_.........___..__.........._..._.n._...__._........._..........................._____.........................................._-_.__.._-_................_-_.--_......._.__.__..._-_...................._--.-._-_........._............._-_.....__...........
No Stellar Processes 2006
No Xcel Energy 2006
Yes Quantec 2005 Power strip occupancy N/A 27 0.012 $ 90.00sensor
Yes DEER Plug load occupancy 50 143 0.051 $117.25sensor
No KEMA2006.._--_.._....._---_........_................._.._.._..................................._....................._..__....._......_-_._...._---_....................._-_..-
No CEE
No Energy Star
No RTF
Yes NPCC2005 Cubicle occupancy 25 55 0.025 $14.00sensor
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Utilty DSM Program Review
Table 2-78 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utilty companies. The
curent program offerig from PG&E is similar to several other programs offered by Californa
utilities.
2-70 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements t1Ne
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Inforation
Table 2.78 Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive
Incentive Utilty Incentive ($/unit)Notes Reference
Available
No Avista Avista,2006
No ETO ETO,2006
-............................................................................_...._......_--_................_._---_............._---................................._......................_......_.._._.......__._--_...._......_._...................._._.................._--_........_....__......_.......................
No PSE PSE,2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006
......__....................................................__._.._-_....-....-..._.........._._........_......._._._-_......_......................._..............--..._...._._............................_............_..___..._....___....~................_....._~.Oh.~~~~~~~......_..._..
Yes PG&E $15 PG&E,2006
Eugene
Yes Water and $15 Eugene, 2006Electric
Board
Code Review
Neither IECC 2003 nor IECC 2006 includes requirements for plug load occupancy sensors.
There are curently no federal standards either.
Measure Vendors
Table 2-79 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
plug load occupancy sensors in Idaho.
Table 2.79. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
Watt Stopper
USA Technologies
Garcy/SLP
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Representatives from Watt Stopper and USA technologies provided useful information regarding
the cost of plug load occupancy sensors. Both manufactuers agree that most products wil cost
between $90 and $120. From this data and the price of their own products, an assumed
equipment cost of $90 was used for this analysis.
Prescriptive Recommendation
In an effort to tr to increase the penetration rates of plug load occupancy sensors, incorporation
of a prescriptive incentive for qualifying products in the FinAswer Express program is
recommended. Additional details regarding this recommendation are provided below.
Measure Baseline
Table 2-80 contains the baseline annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for plug load
occupancy sensors.
tlll 2006 FinAswe~ Express Market Charactenzation and Program Enhancements 2-71
.Measure Inforation Section 2
Table 2.80. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Baseline Data
25
50
150
Annual Energr
Consumption
(kWh/ unit)
110
220
555
Annual
Operating
Hours
Demand1
(kW/ unit)
Cost1,2
($/unit)
Size
(watts)
4400
4400
3700
0.025
0.05
0.15
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1 Energy consumption, demand, and cot reflect gross values.
Baseline cost is zero assuming the offce equipment is already in use.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
Table 2-81 contains the annual energy consumption, demand, and cost for plug load occupancy
sensors.
Table 2.81. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Size Annual Energr Annual Demand1 Cost1,2
(watts)Consumption Operating (kW/ unit)($/unit)(kWh/ unit)Hours.25 45 1452 0.025 $90.00
50 91 1452 0.050 $90.00
150 234 1250 0.150 $90.00
1 Energy consumption, demand, and cost reflect gross values.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Deemed measure costs and savings for various sized plug load occupancy sensors ar~ provided
in Table 2-82.
Table 2.82. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Gross Nee
Incremental Demand Annual Incremental Demand Annual
Measure Customer Savings1 Energy Customer Savings1 Energy
Cost Savings1 Cost Savings1
($/unit)(kW/ unit)(kWh/ unit)($/unit)(kW/ unit)(kWh/ unit)
25 watt sensor $90.00 0.000 65 $86.40 0.000 62
50 watt sensor $90.00 0.000 129 $86.40 0.000 124
150 watt sensor $90.00 0.000 321 $86.40 0.000 308
1 Values reflect gross savings at the customer meter.
2 Net cost, demand, and energy savings are calculated using an estimated Net to Gross (NTG) ratio of 0.96 (DEER 20).
.Incentive Levels
Proposed incentive levels for plug load occupancy sensors are $15/unit, equal to curent levels
offered by PG&E and Eugene Water and Electrc Board.
2-72 200 FinAnswe~ Expres Market Characterization and Program Enhancements ""Neønr
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Delivery Mechanism
A post-purchase customer incentive delivery mechanism, with the flexibility to allow customer
assignment of incentives to vendors if desired, is recommended for this measure. Table 2-83
includes a summary of the key program delivery mechanism characteristics.
Table 2.83. Plug Load Occupancy Sensor Incentive Delivery Mechanism
Parameter Recommendation
Formal Trade Ally Network No.............______._......................._n..........._.._...._._....._.__............_....................-...._....._-------_._................._-
Pre-Purchase Agreement No
Application Process New application for plug sensors
Incentive $15 per qualifyng unit-----.-_.---.-----.---------------_._-----------._...._................._........ -_........_................._..._............_....._-_..
Reported Costs Deemed based on project - see Table 2-82
Reported Savings Stipulated - see Table 2-82
t1Neønr 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characerization and Program Enhancements 2-73
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
2.16 TRANSFORMERS
Measure Description
Dry-type, low voltage transformers are used to decrease the voltage from utility lines to standard
voltages used by equipment and machinery. Analysis focused on low voltage, three phase
transformers in seven sizes (all values given are in kVA): 15, 30,45, 75, 112.5, 150, and 225.
MeasurelTechnology Review
The National Electrical Manufactuers Association (NMA) standard, TP 1, Guidefor
Determining Energy Effciency for Distribution Transformers is curently the basis for
evaluating all potential savings across all the resources reviewed. Both KEMA and Stellar
Processes incorporated TP-l transformers into their comprehensive market studies for Xce1
Energy and the Energy Trust of Oregon, respectively, but cost and savings data were aggregated
into a single measure. Energy Star labels TP-l compliant trsformers and provides a
comprehensive calculator to assist in determining the energy and cost savings associated with
high-efficiency transformers. The calculator is flexible in natue, allowing users to enter the
effciency levels of the two units for comparson. A summar of the data evaluated durng this
review is provided in Table 2-84.
2-74 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements I; Ne
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.84. Review of Transformer Measure Information
Measure Annual Demand Incremental
Information Resource Size Effciency Energy Savings1 Cost
2
(kVA)Savings1Available(kWh/unit)(kW/unit)($/unit)
Yes Ecotope 2003 75 98.0%920 0.11 $332
No PG&E 2003
Yes Stellar Processes 2006 Various TP-1 NA NA $0.188/kWh
No Xcel Energy 2006.._---_...._----_......................._.__.___........_______....__.........riri.riri..........._____...........................__._....._...............................-------------------_._.....-_.-------------------_.__._.._._._....-------------
No Quantec 2005
No DEER
Yes KEMA2006 Various TP-1 $0.064/kWh--'---_._..._---_.._-----_.----------------------------_.._----_.._---_._--_..---------_...._--_._---_......-.-.-------------.._-------...-..-.--------_....__.._---------------_.._------...._.._-.._-..------_..__.._...._-_.._-_._-~
15 97.0%1032 $314
30 97.5%1299 $296
45 97.7%1687 $313
75 98.0%2071 $476YesCEE$629112.5 98.2%3030
150 98.3%3944 $789
225 98.5%4964 $879
500 98.7%6178 $1274____.._............._......__......ri._.._...................__..........____.._.._..........._............__..............___........__.................................................._................._---_............................_-
Yes Energy Star
No RTF
No NPCC2005
15 97.0%311 0.06 $522
30 97.5%622 0.10 $536
45 97.7%933 0.11 $797
Yes Nexant2005 75 98.0%1555 0.17 $903
112.5 98.2%2332 0.21 $1032
150 98.3%3109 0.19 $1385
225 98.5%4664 0.28 $2506
1 Savings are gross savings at the meter.
2 Costs are gross customer costs.
Utilty DSM Program Review
Table 2-85 contains curent prescriptive incentive offers from various utility companies.
ePMlnr 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-75
.
.
.
Measure Information Section 2
Table 2.85 Transformer Prescriptive Utilty DSM Program Overview
Prescriptive SizeIncentiveUtilty(kVA)Incentive Notes Reference
Available
No Avista Avista, 2006
No ETO ETO,2006-_..__._--................._-_...._......_-_.__........................................................_----............................................__........._.....---_........................................................................-......._-_........................................
Yes PSE Various $2.50/kVA TP-1 effciency levels PSE,2006
No Idaho Power Idaho Power, 2006
No Xcel Energy Xcel Energy, 2006......................................................__............................................__..._.........._--_......................................................_---_.............__._........~..........._--_..__........_......_---~
No PG&E PG&E, 2006
15 $210
30 $310
45 $445
Yes Tacoma Power 75 $505 TP-1 effciency levels Tacoma Power, 200
112.5 $665
150 $825
225 $1810
Code Review
New federal minimum efficiency standards low-voltage dr-tye trsformers wil become
effective January 1,2007 (EPACT 2005). The new standards wil make NEMA TP-llevels the
baseline effciency (see Table 2-86).
Table 2.86. NEMA Tp.1 Low Voltage Dry Type Transformer Effciency Levels
Single Phase Three Phase i
Size Minimum Size Minimum
(kVA)Effciency (kVA)Effciency
15 97.7%15 97.0%
25 98.0%30 97.5%
37.5 98.2%45 97.7%
50 98.3%75 98.0%
75 98.5%112.5 98.2%
100 98.6%150 98.3%
167 98.7%225 98.5%
250 98.8%300 98.6%
333 98.9%500 98.7%
750 98.8%
1000 98.9%
Measure Vendors
Table 2-87 contains contact information for three equipment manufactuers or vendors that sell
high-effciency transformers in Idaho.
2-76 2006 FinAnsweri Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements Q,.
.
.
.
Section 2 Measure Information
Table 2.87. Transformer Vendors
Vendor/Manufacturer
D&S Electc Supply
Wheeler Electrc
Electrical Equipment
Company Inc.
Phone Number
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Prescriptive Recommendation
Due to the forthcoming increase in federal minimum efficiency requirements and a lack of any
significant cost or specifications for low-voltage dry-tye transformers that wil exceed these
requirements, a prescriptive incentive for this measure is not recommended. Until more data
become available, Nexant recommends that customers wishing to install transformers that
exceed the minimum efficiency requirements shown in Table 2-86 utilize the custom incentive
path available in either FinAnswer Express, or when installed as part of a more comprehensive
project, Energy FinAswer. To simplify analysis efforts to estimate savings, however, it is
recommended that the Energy Star Transformer Effciency Calculator be used.
Measure Baseline
Baseline effciencies for any new low-voltage dr-tye transformers wil be NEMA TP-l levels
after January 1,2007.
Minimum Effciency Requirements
Only trnsformers that exceed NEMA TP-1 levels are expected to provide savings, and
therefore, be eligible for incentives under the curent Finnswer Express or Energy FinAswer
programs.
Unit Measure Cost and Savings
Incremental measure costs for trnsformers that exceed NEMA TP-l were not identified though
research efforts associated with this measure. Customers applying for incentives should be asked
to obtain two quotes from their equipment vendors, one for the proposed unit and another for a
NEMA TP-l compliant unit, to establish incremental costs until a robust data set is established
and can be used to estimate incremental costs. Savings for high-effciency transformer projects
can be calculated using the Energy Star Transformer Effciency Calculator available at
ww.energystar.gov.
Incentive Levels
Curent Energy FinAnswer or FinAswer Express custom incentives would be paid for
qualifying high-effciency transformers.
~Mlnr 200 FinAnswe¡4 Exprss Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 2-77
.
.
.
Measure Inforation Section 2
Delivery Mechanism
No changes to the curent delivery mechanism for high-effciency transformers are
recommended. To help simplify the savings analysis for qualifying units, Nexant recommends
use of the Energy Star Transformer Efficiency Calculator.
2-78 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancments øNe
.
.
.
Section 3 Savings Potential
This section contains a sumary of the estimated incremental costs and savings associated with
the potential modifications to the curent FinAswer Express program.
Nexant estimated the measure-level participation rates from a variety of sources, including
referenced DSM market potential studies, program participation estimates filed with
commissions by other utilities for similar measures, and realized values from existing programs.
Nexant estimated that a measure introduced to the market would experience paricipation
numbers that are 50% of a matue measure in the first year. This is to account for program
paricipation ramp-up effects associated with the time it takes vendor networks and the customer
base to become familar with the eligible technologies and incentive process. The second year
participation numbers for the same measure would increase to 80%; culminating in a matue
measure by the third year. This approach allows natural market activities to occur, such as
increasing the local supply of high efficiency equipment stock and recognizing the benefit of
conservation practices for new technologies.
Incremental utility administrative costs have been estimated assuming a rate of $0.06 per new
kWhyr of customer energy savings. Table 3- i sumarzes the incremental cost and savings
estimates by measure and year. Cost estimates do not include a one time design costs to
incorporate these changes of approximately $2,500 and incremental program evaluation
(estimated at $5,000 /yr) or marketing expenses (estimated at $1,500/yr). Estimated measure
lifetimes for all measures identified in Table 3-1 are approximately i 5 years, with the exception
of the plug load occupancy sensors, which have an estimated measure lifetime of 8 years (PG&E
2003).
t1NeØnT 200 FinAswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 3.1
.
.
.
Savings Potential Section 3
Table 3.1. Estimated Incremental Costs and Savings from Recommended Program Modifications1
Net Net Annual Net Peak
Measure/Administrative Incentives Total Utilty Customer Energy DemandCostsCosts 2 IncrementalYear($lyr)($lyr)($/yr)Costs 3
Savings Savings
l$/vr\(kWh/yr)4 (kW)4
LED Channel Letter Signs
Year 1 $51 $68 $119 $441 851 0.2
Year 2 $82 $108 $190 $705 1,362 0.3
Year 3 $102 $135 $237 $881 1,703 0.4
Ofcupancy-Based PTACIPTHP Controls
Year 1 $450 $875 $1,325 $4,800 7,499 1.6
Year 2 $720 $1,400 $2,120 $7,680 11,999 2.6
Year 3 $900 $1,750 $2,650 $9,600 14,999 3.3
ECMs
Year 1 $606 $563 $1,169 $1,087 10,106 1.2
Year 2 $970 $901 $1,871 $1,740 16,170 1.8
Year 3 $1,213 $1,126 $2,339 $2,174 20,212 2.3
Motors (Incremental from Enhanced Delivery Mechanism)
Year 1 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 2 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Year 3 $237 $1,301 $1,538 $7,269 3,952 1.0
Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
Year 1 $525 $608 $1,133 $1,192 8,754 1.0
Year 2 $840 $972 $1,812 $1,908 14,007 1.6
Year 3 $1,051 $1,215 $2,266 $2,385 17,509 2.0
Cool Roofs i
Year 1 $157 $726 $883 $2,439 2,616 1.6
Year 2 $251 $1,161 $1,412 $3,902 4,186 2.6
Year 3 $314 $1,452 $1,766 $4,878 5,232 3.2
Plug Load Occupancy Sensors
Year 1 $119 $240 $359 $1,037 1,976 0.0
Year 2 $190 $384 $574 $1,659 3,161 0.0
Year 3 $237 $480 $717 $2,074 3,952 0.0
Total
Year 1 $2,145 $4,379 $6,525 $18,264 35755 6.6
Year 2 $3,290 $6,227 $9,517 $24,862 54837 10.0
Year 3 $4,053 $7,458 $11,512 $29,260 67558 12.2
1 Estimates are for a full year program period.
2 Utility costs include administration and incentives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs.
3 Customer costs represet the net values inclusive of net-to-gros estimates, but do not include the impa of available incentives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflect net impact at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-ross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 2006).
Table 3-2 shows the savings and cost estimates from the original market characterization report
for Idaho for the curent Lighting, HVAC, and motor measures. Table 3-3 includes an
3-2 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancments tJNØøn
.
.
.
Section 3 Savings Potential
adjustment to the original estimates made by removing customers on rate schedule i 0 from the
eligible customer base.
Table 3.2. Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Net Customer Net Annual Net Peak
Year Incentives Incremental Cost Energy Savings Demand Savings
(kWh)(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,632 $1,794 9,369 2
Year 2 $2,601 $2,829 14,762 3
HVAC
Year 1 $1,974 $2,785 1,134 3
Year 2 $4,066 $5,737 2,336 6
Lighting
Year 1 $ 28,314 $ 103,739 232,079 42
Year 2 $ 56,441 $ 206,796 462,631 84
Total
Year 1 $ 31,920 $ 108,318 242,582 47
Year 2 $ 63,108 $ 215,362 479,729 93
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table 3.3. Schedule 10 Adjusted Original FinAnswer Express Measure Estimates 1
Net Customer Net Annual Net Peak
Year Incentives Incremental Cost Energy Savings Demand Savings
(kWh)(kW)
Motors
Year 1 $1,086 $1,194 6,236 1
Year 2 $1,731 $1,883 9,826 2
HVAC
Year 1 $1,314 $1,854 755 2
Year 2 $2,706 $3,819 1,555 4
Lighting
Year 1 $18,847 $69,052 154,480 28
Year 2 $37,569 $137,651 307,943 56
Total
Year 1 $21,247 $72,100 161,471 31
Year 2 $42,007 $143,353 319,324 62
1 Savings are net savings at the meter while customer costs represent the net values inclusive of free-ridership
estimates.
Table 3-4 summarizes the total estimated costs and savings associated with the FinAswer
Express program for a three-year period following the incorporation of the recommended
changes and modifications provided in this report.
i1_nr 200 FinAnswe~ Exprss Market Characterization and Prora Enhancements 3-3
.
.
.
Savings Potential Section 3
Table 3-4. Estimated Total Costs and Savings for Modified FinAnswer Express Program1
Net Net Annual Net Peak
Measure/Administrative Incentives Total Utilty Customer Energy DemandCostsCosts 2 IncrementalYear($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)Costs 3
Savings Savings
t$/vr\(kWh/yr)4 (kW)
4
Lighting Measures
Year 1 $17,691 $37,637 $55,328 $138,091 308,795 56.11
Year 2 $17,722 $37,677 $55,399 $138,356 309,306 56.22
Year 3 $17,742 $37,704 $55,446 $138,532 309,646 56.30
Non-Lighting Measures
Year 1 $23,055 $8,750 $31,805 $23,525 46,285 12.39
Year 2 $24,169 $10,557 $34,726 $29,859 64,856 15.63
Year 3 $24,912 $11,761 $36,673 $34,081 77,236 17.79
Total
Year 1 $40,746 $46,386 $87,133 $161,617 355,080 68.50
Year 2 $41,891 $48,234 $90,125 $168,214 374,161 71.86
Year 3 $42,654 $49,465 $92,120 $172,613 386,883 74.10
1 Estimates are for a full year program period.
2 Utility costs include administration and incetives, but not design, marketing or evaluation costs.
3 Customer costs represent the net values inclusive of net-to-gross estimates, but do not include the impacts of available incentives.
4 Energy and demand savings reflect net impacts at the customer meter with an assumed net-to-gross ratio of 0.96 (DEER 200).
3-4 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNe
.
.
.
Section 4 Summary
Recommendations provided in this report follow the original objective of seeking to increase
cost-effective energy and demand savings realized within PacifiCorp's Idaho service terrtory
and continue to improve new constrction participation levels. Maintaining and improving
consistency of program delivery across the service terrtories, as well as looking for
opportities to reduce administrative costs, have also been evaluated and included.
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 4-1 summarzes the recommendations from this effort. Minor changes in program delivery
methods and housekeeping issues are recommended for curent technologies. For all of the new
technologies, opportities to avoid complex and expensive custom analysis efforts were
identified and recommended. Only high-effciency transformers were not recommended for a
prescriptive offering under the FinAnswer Express program at this time, due primarily to
upcoming code changes and limited equipment information and costs for units exceeding the
new minimum efficiency levels. For all remaining new technologies, Nexant recommends that
PacifiCorp evaluate the cost-effectiveness of affected measures before incorporating the changes
in the program.
î-1Ml 2006 FinAnswe~ Exprss Market Characterization and Program Enhancments 4-1
.Summary Section 4
Table 4.1. Recommendations for Evaluated Technologies 1
.
Pre-Trade Reported Costs Reported Savings
Measure Purchase Ally Deemed Deemed Deemed DeemedAgreementNetworkActualbased on based on Simplified based on based on
Required project measure Analysis project measure
Lighting 2 ./Lighting ././
..............~_..._--_..............................--.._~............................_._--_..._.........................................._............_-----_......_..._-_........................---_........................................................_..............._..............._-
Lighting controls 2 ./Lighting ././
LED channel letter signs 2 ./Lighting ././
LED message center signs ./Lighting ././
Unitary air conditioners and HVAC ././
heat pump
Evaporative colers HVAC ././
Water chiling packages ./HVAC ././
Programmable thermostats HVAC ././
------------------------_._----------_.-----.--_.-----------_..__..................._......__...__..............................................................._................._....-_..............._...........................---------_.----------------------.---------------~
Ocupancy-based HVAC ././PTHP/PTAC controls
Variable frequency drives HVAC&././Motor...............__.............._---_...................._............---,,-.-------------_.-.------.-.-.--------.-------.--......_......_-_............._--_.._..........._......_--_..--".._---------------_.._-----------_._._----.-----
Electronically commutated HVAC&././motors Motor
Premium effciency motors Motor ././
Soid door refrigerators and ././freezers
Cool rofs ././
Plug load occupancy ././sensors_.__._._-_..__..............................-..._._--_.__.--_._-_._----....................._...._......_.._....................._.._--_.----_.....~.._._.._--_____......._____________-i_______________
Transformers ./././
1 Deemed costs and savings based on project incorporate project specific variables (e.g. deemed energy and demand savings as a
function of horsepower for premium effciency motors), while deemed cots and savings based on measure are only a function of
the measure type (e.g. prorammable thermostats)
2 Pre-purchase agreement only recommended on retrofit projects - not for new constrction or major renovation
.
In addition to the new measures sumarized in Error! Reference source not found., the
following recommendations are made to help improve the overall program:
· Incorporate prescriptive incentives for a variety of new lighting fixtue upgrades
identified in Table 2-5
· Clarify the distinction between retrofit, major renovation, and new constrction measures
Define retrofit as an elective project within existing square footage
Define major renovation as either a change in facility use tye or where existing
system wil not meet owner/tenant projected requirements within existing square
footage
Define new constrction as a project within new square footage
4-2 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements tJNe
.
.
.
Section 4 Summary
· Treat major renovation lighting projects the same as new constrction
· Create a separate incentive table for prescriptive new constrction lighting upgrades
· Update the estimated incremental lighting fixture costs for new constrction measures to
values provided in Table B-2 in Appendix B
· Allow trade alles and customers the opportity to submit post-purchase applications for
new constrction lighting upgrades
· Increase the incentive cap for custom projects from 35% of eligible project cost to 50%
of project cost to encourage more comprehensive projects
· Incorporate the design team honorarium from the Energy FinAnswer tariff (Schedule
115) because all new constrction projects benefit from early involvement in energy
effciency efforts
· Modify the curent motor incentive delivery mechanism to allow for customer post-
purchase applications
· Update the deemed incremental measure cost for premium effciency motors
· Adjust the VPD incentive from $80IHP to $65IHP
· Revise programmable thermostat eligibility requirements to reflect changes in the Energy
Star program
· Update minimum effciency requirements for HVAC equipment.. 65,000 Btu to
values provided in Table 2-23
4.2 QAQC PROCEDURES
To help maintain program and savings integrty, PacifiCorp is encouraged to expand their
existing internal prescriptive measure quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC)
procedures to new prescriptive technologies identified in this report. Specifically, application
processing activities should include, at a minimum, verification of the following items:
· Customer electrc account number
· Installation address for submitted account number
· Valid equipment installation date
· Equipment eligibility
· Equipment capacity and effciency ratings, where applicable
· The requested incentive amount
In addition to the application due dilgence activities outlined above, PacifiCorp should initiate a
tiered inspection procedure commensurate with the level of monetary risk to PacifiCorp.
Suggested efforts include inspecting 5% of all submitted applications to verify equipment
~1l 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 4-3
.
.
.
Summary Section 4
purchase and installation. The inspection selection process should balance the need for
randomness with the need to verify the compliance of multiple Allance Paricipants where
applicable. Consideration of incentive amounts should also be included in sample selection.
These field inspections should serve to verify the following information:
· Installation address
· Equipment make and manufactuer
· Equipment model number
· Equipment size
4.4 2006 FinAnswer0 Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancments tJNe
.Section 5 References
ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 90.1 Cognizant TC: TC 9.6, Systems Energy Utilization.
2001. ANSIIASHRAEIIESNA 90.1-2001 Energy Standardfor Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. ASHRA 90.1_2001.
ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committee 90.1 Cognizant TC: TC 7.6 Systems Energy
Utilization. 2004. ANSIIASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Standardfor Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings ASHRAE 90.1_2004.
Barakat & Chamberlin. 1994. Lighting Load Shape Field Study. Prepared for Public Service
Company of Colorado.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005.
http://www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/deliverable _6.2.5_ CaseStudy _5.1.pdf
Ecotope et. al. 2003. Energy Effciency and Conversation Measure Resource Assessment for the
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Sectors. Prepared for Energy Trust of
Oregon.
.IECC 2003. 2003 International Energy Conservation Code. Fourh Printing, April 2004.
International Code CounciL.
IECC 2006. 2006 International Energy Conservation Code First Printing, January 2006.
International Code CounciL.
Keese et al. 2004. 2005 Building Energy Effciency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings. (CA Title 24) Prepared for the California Energy Commission.
KEMA. 2006. Colorado DSM Market Potential Assessment, Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared for Xce1
Energy.
Kubo et al. 2001. Opportunitiesfor New Appliance and Equipment Effciency Standards: Energy
and Economic Savings Beyond Current Standards Programs. Report Number AOI6.
Prepared for American Council for an Energy-Effcient Economy.
kW Engineering. 2005. Walk-in Evaporator Fan ECM Market Evaluation. Prepared for
PacifiCorp.
Magana, Jim. 2006. Personal communication via email on 7/19/2006.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2002. NEMA Standards Publication TP 1-2002,
Guide for Determining Energy Efciency for Distribution Transformers.
. NEMA. 2002. NEMA Premium - Product Scope and Nominal Effciency Levels.
tJNe 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 5-1
.
.
.
References Section 5
Nexant. 2005. NYSERDA Deemed Savings Measure Database. Prepared for NYSERDA.
NPCC. 2005. The Fifh Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan.
Pacific Gas & Electrc (PG&E). 2003. 2004-2005 Express Effciency Work Papers.
Quantec. 2005. Assessment o/Technical and Achievable Demand Side Resource Potentials.
Prepared for Puget Sound Energy.
RSD Total Control, Idaho. 2006. Personal communication via telephone on 7/7/2006.
Stellar Processes et. aL. 2006. Energy Effciency and Conversation Measure Resource
Assessment. Prepared for Energy Trust of Oregon.
Washington State Building Code Council, 2005. Washington State Energy Code 2004 Edition,
Chapter 51-11 WAC.
Xcel Energy. 2006. 200712008/2009 Triennial Plan Minnesota Natural Gas and Electric
Conversation Improvement Program.
Web Sites
APS. 2006. ww.aps.com/aps services/business/waystosave/default.html
Adobe Air. 2006. htt://adobeair.com
Austin Energy. 2006. http://austinenergy.com/nergy%20Efficiency/Programs/
Avista Utilties. 2006. www.avistautilities.com/saving/com incentives.asp
BC Hydro. 2006. Power Smart Product Incentive Program.
www.bchydro.com/usiness/incentive/incentive8821.html
BPA.2006.
v'lvv'w .bpa. gov/EnergylNlprojects/conservation augmentationleso/pdf/ESO Lighting Rebate
Offer.pdf
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005. Bi-Ievel Stairway Lighting Case Study.
www.archenergy.com/lr/products/brochures/deliverable 6.2.5 CaseStudy 5.I.pdf
Consortium for Energy Effciency. 2006. ww.cee1.org/
Database for Energy Effcient Resources (DEER). 2006. http://eega.cpuc.ca.gov/deer/
Deparment of Energy Cool Roof, 2006.
ww.nrnl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/facts/CoolCalcEnergy.htm
5-2 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements 1.1 Nf
.
.
.
setion 5 References
Energy Trust of Oregon. 2006. www.energytrust.org/businesslindex.html
Energy Star. 2006. www.energystar.gov
Florida Power and Light. 2006. www.:fl.comllargebusiness/savings/indcx.shtml
Focus On Energy (FOE). 2006. www.focusonenergy.com
Idaho Power. 2006.
www.idahopower.comlenergycenter/energyeffciency/YourBusiness/default.htm
Manitoba Hydro. 2006. www.hydro.mb.ca/power smart for business/
MotorMaster+. 2006. wwwl.eere.energy.gob/industry/bestpractices/software.html
MotorUp Program. 2006. www.motoruponline.com/
National Grid. 2006. www.nationalgridus.comlnon htmllshared energyeff ei ems pif.pdf
Nevada Power. 2006. ww.ncvadapower.com/conservation/commerciall
New Jersey's Clean Energy Program. 2006.
ww.njsmartstarbuildings.comlmain/eguip inc.html
NStar Electrc. 2006. www.nstaronline.comlss/your business/ee-forms/ee-131.pdf
NYSERDA. 2006. ww.nyserda.org/incentives.asp
PG&E, 2006. www.pge.comlbiz/rebates/
Phoenix Manufactung Inc (PMI). 2006. ww.evapcool.com
Progress Energy, 2006. www.progress-energy.com/custservice/facig/ effciency/index.asp
Puget Sound Energy. 2006. ww.pse.comlsolutions/ForBusiness EfficiencyPrograms.aspx
Regional Technical Foru (RTF). ww.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/Default.htm
Tacoma Power. 2006. ww.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/
Xcel Energy. 2006. ww.xcelenergy.comlLWEB/CDA/0.3080.l-1-3 4530-282-2 68 132-
O,OO.html
tlM!nT 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characerization and Program Enhancements 5-3
.
.
.
Appendix A Supplemental Lighting Cost Survey and Results
PacifiCorp is asking a small handful of our top alles for a little feedback. Please provide your
input on "ballpark" differential pricing for a few common lighting measures. These are not
pricing quotes for a specific project, we are simply looking to get a feel for the approximate price
comparson, or cost that end users could expect to see, when comparing A to B. Your time is
valuable and your help is appreciated.
1. What is the price difference between a 400w MH (not pulse start) and a 320w MHPS
fixtue?
Vendor # Comments
1 $70 increase per 320W PS fixture
.2 $2 decrase per 320W PS fixture
3 $20 increase per 320W PS fixture
2. What are the price differences between standard F32 T8 and Premium T8 1,2,3, and 4
lamp fixtues?
Vendor # Comments
1 lamp - $12
2 lamps-$14
1 3 lamps-$16
4 lamps - $18................._._....._"...-H.............._..............._......_...___.._.___........_........._.........-_...._.._........._......__..__..........__..__.._...........-.--_...-_........._.....-..---_..__....._....._.._....-
1 lamp-$1.45
2 lamps-$1.452
3 lamps - $1.95 i
-------------4 lamps - $3.35_._..................._...._....._---_.._...._~...._......._...._...........~_....._....._-_...........__..__........-.._---......._.._~...
1 lamp-$1
2 lamps-$233lamps-$3
4 lamps- $4
3. What is the price difference between a standard electronic ballast (0.88 ballast factor) and
a premium ballast c. 0.8 ballast factor)?
Vendor # Comments
1 $10 per fixture, installed at factory
2 $1.75 per fixture
3 No difference in cost
t1Nt 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Proram Enhancements A-1
.
.
.
Supplemental Lighting Cost Survey and Results Appendix A
4. What is the incremental cost between a T5HO lamp and a T8F32 lamp?
Vendor #Comments
1 2 to 3 times mor expensive for T5HO lamps.....................___................._._....__.._..........___u........u...._....__.b.._b...._.._...............................___..........................__._.........................._..................._..... ..._._........_..u.___.....................u.........__._...__..__..............
____________________~_____________________~!_:~?__!?r__!_~'.~:___~~_:_~_~~r__!~~~~__I_~i.~_~_~~~~~i.:_~__i.?r~._~~~_~nsive)______________________________.___.____.._.....______.__________________
3 $5.00 more expensive for T5HO lamp than T8F32 lamp
5. What is the incremental cost between a ballast for T5HO lamp and a ballast for a T8F32
lamp?
Vendor # Comments
1 2 to 3 times more expensive for T5HO ballasts
2 $35 for T5HO, $15 for T8F32 ballast (2.3 times more expensive)
3 $20 more expensive for T5HO ballast than T8F32 ballast
6. What is the price difference between a T5HO fixtue and a T8F32 fixtue?
Vendor # Comments
1 2 to 3 times more expensive for T5HO fixtures
2 $189 for T5HO, $136 for T8F32 fixture (1.4 times more expensive)
3 $35 more expensive for T5HO fixture than T8F32 fixture
A-2 2006 FinAnswer0 Expres Market Characterization and Program Enhancements ØNeøn
.Appendix B Lighting Measure Information
Table B . 1. Compiled Lighting Retrofit Cost Data1
Average Average Average
Fixture # Installed Material Cost Labor Cost Total Cost
($/unit) ($/unit) ($/unit)
1LF32T8Elec 2 $18.37 $30.00 $48.37................._.._.______....M......................__...._....................................................._._._....__..._............____...._..__....................................__......-.....__.......................... ...................----.--.1LF96T8HOElect 22 $69.06 $37.06 $106.12............................................_.......................................................__...__........................................ ._.................................._.........._-_............-_..._...........__..............................._-_............._.....~........................_..._............2LF32T8Elec 1,678 $43.26 $28.77 $68.59..............................._..............._-_.............._...................._...._--_..................................-...........................................__......__..__.............__._....-.._........._---_........._............................................._.__........_................2LF55T5HO 14 $269.83 $102.86 $325.3_._---------------------_._._...-------------.--------------- -----------------.-----_._-_.__.._-_..-..---------------------_..------------------.---------_._-_._-_..._.---------------------------2LF96T8Elect 75 $50.33 $25.27 $75.60.........................._._-_..._......................_...........---..........._..................................._-_._.._._........._.._.........................._...................__...._...._.._............................. ...................__.._......2LF96T8HOElect 232 $88.44 $15.45 $103.16..............................................._..................._...................................._......................................._..- ........................_.............._-_....._.............._-_......................_.._....._.............._....._-_......................_-_.__.
_.__________________________________________~L~~3:~Ele.?____________~_!~~?..____________________~~:_!.~________._____.._____~~:3i_____...._.__________________._~!!.'!:_~~.______.______.4LF32T8Elec 1,614 $64.37 $64.54 $112.43......_-_...._...............................----_........_...................................._........_........._................._.............._..............._.....~...._-_................__.._..._...._._...._.-.........................-----4LF55T5HO- 499 $245.14 $71.98 $297.04------------_._--------_.---.-.-..-----------------------------------_._--..-..-.._.-.-..-.-...-....--------.----..-------------------------_._.._.__._-..-.------------------------_..---------_..-.-.----------_._-_..- ---------------_._-_..----._---
________________..____________________..__.._._....._._.__._~_L_i._~?!5Hl:lS?~~....................___~_~.__.._......__~~!.~:~?________________.__~_g?:~..._____..__________........~~?:~~_..._......__....__
____________...._._._....._.~LF3.~_!~~_I~~!ghba~::....__.._....._......_?~~____.._____________ $26~:?_~.._.___________.___J163:~.?______________________...........J320.~~_._.".._._..__
___.._______..?_Li...~?!.~Ele~~i_g~~~¥.'_~~_".._._..._.._~..~~____________.________________..____.......__~..177.43....._______.._.____~!~..~_~......_~_______...__............~?_?~.50____6LF55T5HQ- 1,617 $306.71 $104.97 $337.31--------------------------------_.-_..-_.-...._.-..--.-.---_.._-------_.._-----_._--_._----------_._.---.-....._._..--.-_._-._------------------------_.__.._....__.----------------------------------_..-----------------_._-- --_.._------------_..-.-.--CFL12W Iscrew-in 51 $7.96 $2.04 $10.00.................................................-...__.............................................._............................................... .........._......................._...........-.............._--_..__..........._..._.__..........................._..._.._._-_......................--_.....CFL14W/screw-in 20 $8.45 $4.70 $13.15.__......_................_......_...._....................-.......-..--------_..._-_....._._....................__......._....._............_.._...._....._.._........................._-_..........__._...._....-.._.......CFL15W/screw-in 130 $10.79 $3.67 $14.45----_....--._--------------------------.-----------------------------.---------_._---_._-_._..._.----.---------------_.---------------------------------------_.._..-.--------------------_._.._-.----CFL 17W/screw-in 300 $8.90 $3.34 $12.24............................._.....__............................_..........._..............._........_............._............._............_......._.._.._................................................_.._.._.._..._-_.._............................_. .............................._--
_____________________.._._..._......___..__________.____~_~L_~_~../sc~~~:i~._....._.___.._.___ 2 .__.._.__.._________E:.?~_._____________..______~?_:~9.____..___________....._________!~_?:e.~.___._____
f-______._,_..____________ç~L?~\.!.~~w-in __________"___?.~~_____....__________ $4.67.__________________ $2:!~_______..__._________________.___~6.!L_.._____..__
f--------.-.-....-.......------.- CFL2.2V\l~~~~:\!1___._.._._..~_____._______.___.._._________~_~:~___.._________.._._..____~?..~~.._____.._..____~~__!._~1
_____________________.__........_____.________~i.L25~~~~.~:_i~....._.._____.__!..._______._....___._____S_1_~.:~?.____________~?:.~?____~_~?:.~~..__
-------------.---.-.-.......---.---.----..-..---..--gy-L?~~!.ti~~"...~.___.._________~__._..___________!?~.:.~_~________------.-.--~?:~~----------.-..-.--.--------~~~.:.??-----
f-.._____.._.._.._.........__._____~_L3.~~!.~9.r!.~__._._~70________...__.__ $6.~~______.._..__.____..~_____.._____________________s__9.38 _______CF127W/screw-in 13 $15.89 $5.79 $21.69------_.__._._-----_._........."-----"-----------------------_._...._...-.._._----------------------_._--.--_.._-_...----_......---------------------_......--------------
__________________________.__._....._.__________g..L3~~!.~~r.~:!~______.______..~___________...__________~_~_~.:~15________________~?~.:.e,~____~??.:.~~______
CFL42W/screw-in 931 $15.51 $19.21 $31.78..................._.................._._-_....._.._.._.................................._......._....__._--- .-._.._.._.._........._......_......_................_--_........................................._._................_-_..._......................Exit elcto/luminescent 41 $278.66 $106.03 $368.79..................__....._......._--_......................._.-.....__...._...__.._.__.__....__._--_..__._.._.._.._.__..._..__....._............._._.._....................-.._.._--_.ExitLED 591 $40.92 $20.44 $61.36_.__._....._...._..._---_..__.....-................__._-_..._....__....._.........._..-.__.._-_....__._...._-_......._......_...._-----_._...................._--MH250 48 $171.66 $60.94 $232.60...........................---_._...................._._.......__................._.__..._.._-_.._..........._......_-_........................_......._...._._...........__......_--_.._. ................._.._.............MH70 1 $267.70 $112.00 $189.85........................._._._...__........__......................_...---_.._.._......_......._....._. ._--_...........--_.........._.....-..----_................-..._._..._.................__._..........................-MHPS100- 11 $115.10 $17.18 $132.28_.._-_.._-_..............__............_..............._..__...._.............................._...... ..._......_._...........----_...._..-_..._......_...................._-_.._-MHPS175- 36 $73.77 $47.50 $114.89.._---_...._............................---_......................_._--_..._-_....._..._..__._..............................._~-_.......__............_-~_.................__..MHPS32D- 154 $255.89 $205.51 $461.40_.........._----_..........._..................._--_..._..._-_..........-.......__._.._......_.._-_.._.............._._......_.._.._..._~........_--................._..--................_......._..........._--
..............._____ Pre~_~_!~__::~g~_Lmp O..!.~~___________ 4 ____._~!?:.~~__________ $14.!.g.......__.__________..__...___...___~31.!.~__.____
Prem H8 3100 lumc:0.8 SF 24 $20.77 $22.93 $43.69
===~~~~:.~:r,~~__?!~ -~3oïN~~p.:_:~_~___~----~_=~1_~~_:::=:_:.::::::~-::.____________~3.~:._~5 --_:=--=::_:~~~:_~? .:~=----.-----~¥~~~__~=.
___._.__.____~~_'!_3I._~_~!~~~!_.::_:~__~-'______ 140!.._.___________..~~.:~__...___.____s_~_:_~_~__......__._________..._..._$61 ~_~___........___
_._._......._.________ Pre~~!~_~..~~Y.._L_mp g.:~~~____________~_______J~8.3~_____.____________._.J30.8~......._______________.._.........._~..2.23____Prem 3T8 3100 lumc:0.8 SF 852 $49.72 $25.05 $74.30........................-........--..--..............~................._-----..............._.._............_.-... ...-....--....................--..----.----.......-...-.......----..-
____.._.__....____..__~ri:1!4T8 ::~gY.__LT.p._~~_~'=_..__..__~_~~?........._____________________._..~~?:~__.._________.....~_~_~_:g_?._____~~:_~_~_......_____Prem 4T8 3100 lumc:0.8 SF 866 $64.02 $39.67 $92.60
1 Listed values correspond to the average of all completed lighting measures submitted by pacifiorp's Lighting Trade
Alles from October of 2005 through June of 2006
.
.
t1Ne 2006 FinAnswe~ Expres Market Characterization and Progra Enhancements B-1
.
.
.
Lighting Measure Information AppndixB
Table B . 2. Prescriptive New Construction Lighting Fixture Costs and Incentives 1
New Construction Current i
Fixture Baseline Deemed Recommended Current Recommended
Deemed Cost Incentive IncentiveFixtureCost($/unit)($/unlt)($/unit)($/unit)
Prem H8 -:30W Lmp 0.8 BF 1 LF32T8Elec $8 $5 $10 $7
""m 218 .: L"" 0.8 BF .' $8 $6 $10 $7
Prem 3T8 -: 30W Lmp 0.8 BF 8Elec $10 $7 $15 $10
--Prem 4;-8 -:30W-L~P-Õ:'ã'-BF-------- -------aËï;;----...... ---.---------------------------$11-
..............__................................._..........................._.~_._.._..............__.....
$8 $15 $10
Prem H8 3100 lum-:0.8 BF F32T8Ele $8 $5 $10 $7
Prem 2T8 3100 lum-:0.8 BF 2LF32T8Elec $9 $6 $10 $7
Prem 3T8 3100 lum-:0.8 BF 3LF32T8Elec $10 $7 $15 $10
Prem 4T8 3100 lum-:0.8 BF 4LF32T8Elec $11 $8 $15 $10
..................................................._......_-"........._._~_.._......................__............_.__..........._....._..............................._....__...............-........._..................._.........................__......._....._........................................_-_......._-
4LF32T8EleclHighbay MH400 $90 $33 $50 $45
6LF32T8EleclHighbay MH400 $90 $37 $50 $45
CFL5W/Hardwire $20 $10 $0......................................................._------......----------------------------------------._--..----------------------------_._---.----------_._-------.------------_.._-------------
CFL7W/Hardwire $10 $10 $0
CFL 10W/Hardwire $20 $15 $0
CFL 12W IHardwire $20 $15 $0
CFL 14W/Hardwire $20 $15 $0
CFL 15W/Hardwire $25 $15 $0
.._-------------------_.__._-_._-_._-_.....---....._-_.._-------_.._---1----_..-.-._.--_....__._._..---_...._---------..............._----_..................-----------_._-_..-_.-.------------------
-..-..-----------------$1..f¡---¡--------..---..--------.----$0'-CFL 17W/Hardwire $25
CFL 19W/Hardwire $25 $15 $0
CFL20W/Hardwire $25 $20 $0
_._..._-------.-------.--------------------------------.-.._--------------_._..---_............._...__..................__.................------------.._---------
CFL22W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL25W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL26W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL27W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL2W/Hardire $10 $10 $0
.._._._..._..............~_._.__._.._.._..--"----_....----...._..._-_...._-_..................._............................_............._............._---_.....................
CFL30W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL36W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
CFL42W/Hardwire $30 $20 $0
f--.-.---------------..--.....-..---------------........__._.............~-
-----.----------------- $29
...-........
MHPS150
~:
$30 $60 $30
MHPS175 $30 $29 $60 $30
MHPS250 MH $30 $29 $80 $30
MHPS300 MH $30 $29 $80 $30
MHPS320 MH400 $30 $29 $30-_._-.._-------_.__....---------------.__._.-_._----.._..----.........__............"..~......_..._--_.-..........-...-----..--.._----.------------_._-
MHPS350 MH400 $30 $29 $100 $30
MHPS400 MH400 $30 $29 $100 $30
MHPS450 MH $30 $29 $120 $30..._._-------_...._.._._.._...................................--------_..---------~-----------.--$29
._........._..................--_....-.--------------
MHPS750 MH $120 $30
CMH39 MH $4 $40 $25 $20
CMH50 MH $50 $40 $25 $20
CMH70 MH $50 $40 I $25 $20
B-2 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characeriation and Program Enhancements UNe
.
.
.
AppendixB Lighting Measure Information
New Construction Current Recommended Current RecommendedFixtureBaselineDeemedDeemed Cost Incentive IncentiveFixtureCost($/unit)($/unit)($/unit)($/unit)
CMH95 MH $65 $40 $20
CMH250 MH $130 -----~$40
........_..____........h.....................__..____................................................._-_..................................................
$145 I
-_......................_-_.._.
CMH300 MH $54 $40
CMH320 MH $145 I $54 $40
CMH400 MH $150 $54 $40
..............._..................................................__..._._................_-1-----------------------.._........_.................---........_...............~.b......
1LF28T5 ?I $15 $15 $10
2LF28T5 3LF32T8Elec $20 $20 $20 $25
3LF28T5 4LF32T8Elec $25 $25 $20 $30
2LF55T5HO 4LF32T8Elec $30 $74 $20 $20
3LF55T5HO (high bay)MH250 $75 $66 $70 $40
.........................._...__._.._........_......_._..~...................................................._-_..._.........................................................hH................._--_.-............__................,...---------------- -----_.__..._._._.-._-~-_.._.-
4LF55T5HO (high bay)MH250 $125 $73 ~ $60
6LF55T5HO (high bay)MH400 $125 ..$80 $7 $60
LED Channel Signage - Indoor Indoor Neon'" 2 $18 $18 $4 $4Red'" 2 feet high feet high
LED Chm'" S~",ge . ~ N"" , 2 $33 $33 $6 $6Red :: 2 feet high high
LED Channel Signage - Outdoor Neon '"$18 $18 $2 $2Outdoo Red'" 2 feet . 2 feet high
LED Channel Signage -Outdoo Neon ::$33 $33 $3 $3Outdoor Red :: 2 feet high 2 feet high
1 Fixture coes taken from PacifiCorp's lighting tool, with the exception of these listed as "MH". In those cases, it was assumed
that there could be two or more different metal halide fixtures installed as a baseline fixture.
~11l 2006 FinAnsweri Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements B.3
.
.
.
Ta
b
l
e

B
-
3

b
e
l
o
w

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

th
e

p
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t

l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

r
e
v
i
e
w
.

C
e
l
l
s

h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d

i
n

g
r
e
e
n

w
e
r
e
fl
a
g
g
e
d

f
o
r

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

a
n
d

t
h
o
s
e

h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d

i
n

r
e
d

w
e
r
e

f
l
a
g
g
e
d

f
o
r

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

S
e
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2
-

i
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

L
e
v
e
l
s

f
o
r

a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

a
n
d

a
n
y

c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
a
k
e
n
.
Ta
b
l
e

B
.

3
.

P
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

R
e
v
i
e
w
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
Re
t
r
o
f
i
t
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
PG
&
E
ET
O
PS
E
BP
A
Av
i
s
t
a
Xc
e
l
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
l
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
!
Fi
x
t
u
r
e
Fi
x
t
u
r
e
En
e
r
g
y
kW
h
kW
1L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
1
L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$5
.
0
0
$4
.
2
5
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$0
.
1
2
$4
1
7
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
r
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

H
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

B
F
$1
0
.
0
0
$4
.
2
5
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$0
.
1
4
$6
2
5
1L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

H
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$1
0
.
0
0
$4
.
2
5
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$7
1
4
1
L
F
9
6
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

2
T
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$2
0
.
0
0
$8
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$1
2
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
1
3
$5
7
1
2L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
2L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
-
$8
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$0
.
0
8
$3
8
5
2L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

H
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
2
5
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
1
0
$3
4
9
30
%
3.
2
2L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

2
T
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$1
0
.
0
0
$8
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
6
$4
1
7
23
%
2L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

2
T
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$1
0
.
0
0
$8
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
1
3
2L
F
9
6
T
1
2
H
O
M
a
g
2L
F
9
6
T
8
H
O
E
l
e
c
t
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
7
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
-
-
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
._
.
.
.
.
.
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1L
F
9
6
T
1
2
M
a
g
1L
F
9
6
T
8
E
l
e
c
t
$1
0
.
0
0
$7
.
5
0
$8
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
2
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$0
.
1
8
$8
3
3
28
%
2L
F
9
6
T
1
2
M
a
g
2L
F
9
6
T
8
E
l
e
c
t
$1
0
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
2
5
2L
F
9
6
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

4
T
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
7
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
1
9
2L
F
9
6
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

4
T
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
7
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
3L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
2L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
4
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
5
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$0
.
0
9
3L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
3L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$1
0
.
0
0
$1
2
.
7
5
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$9
.
0
0
$0
.
0
6
$3
8
5
3L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

H
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$1
6
.
2
5
NA
NA
$1
5
.
0
0
NA
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
3
$2
3
3
3L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g

P
r
a
m

3
T
8
.
.

3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
2
.
7
5
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
1
5
$3
3
3
38
%
3.
5
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
_
.
.
_
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
_
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
Pr
e
m

3
T
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
2
.
7
5
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
1
6
$4
0
5
22
%
8.
1
--
"
4L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
Pr
e
m

4
T
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$1
7
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
2
3
$7
1
4
39
%
5.
1
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
2L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$2
5
.
0
0
$2
0
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
5
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$0
.
1
0
$2
9
4
34
%
2.
7
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
3L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$1
5
.
0
0
$1
8
.
7
5
$1
5
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$9
.
0
0
$0
.
1
0
$2
7
3
9.
3
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
4L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$1
0
.
0
0
$1
7
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$9
.
0
0
$0
.
0
8
$3
1
3
21
%
4.
1
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
Pr
e
m

2
T
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
1
4
$3
1
3
65
%
1.
0
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
Pr
e
m

2
T
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
5
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$3
5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$0
.
1
0
$3
2
6
49
%
1.
5
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
Pr
e
m

3
T
8

.
.

3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
7
5
$1
5
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
0
9
$2
7
0
26
%
3.
6
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
Pr
e
m

3
T
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
.
.
0
.
8

S
F
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
7
5
$1
5
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
1
1
$3
0
3
28
%
4.
1
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
Pr
e
m

4
T
8

.
.
3
0
W

L
m
p

0
.
8

S
F
$1
7
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
0
7
$2
8
3
23
%
3.
6
t1
M
W
t
f
20
0
6

F
i
n
A
n
s
w
e
~

E
x
p
r
e
s
s

M
a
r
k
e
t

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
8-
4
.
.
.
Ae
e
e
n
d
i
x

B

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
Re
t
r
o
f
i
t
PG
&
E
ET
O
PS
E
BP
A
Av
i
s
t
a
Xc
e
l
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
l
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
l
%o
f
SP
B
Fi
x
t
u
r
e
Fi
x
t
u
r
e
En
e
r
g
y
kW
h
kW
Co
s
t
...
_
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
_
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
_
.

"
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.."
M
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
Pr
e
m

4
T
8

3
1
0
0

l
u
m
o
:
O
.
8

S
F
$1
7
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$4
0
.
0
0
$2
0
.
0
0
$1
8
.
0
0
$0
.
1
3
Ex
i
t
F
L
Ex
i
t
L
E
D
$2
7
.
0
0
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
NA
NA
NA
$0
.
1
9
Ex
i
t

I
n
c
a
n
Ex
i
t

e
l
c
t
r
o
/
l
u
m
i
n
e
s
c
e
n
t
$2
7
.
0
0
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
NA
$2
5
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$0
.
0
6
Ex
i
t

I
n
c
a
n
Ex
i
t
L
E
D
$2
7
.
0
0
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
5
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$0
.
0
6
$5
5
6
26
%
2.
6
HP
S
2
5
0
4L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
NA
NA
$8
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
NA
NA
$0
.
1
1
$2
7
3
45
%
1.
9
HP
S
4
0
0
6L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
l
H
i
g
h
b
a
y
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$1
2
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
$0
.
0
3
$2
1
3
17
%
1.
8
HP
S
4
0
0
6L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
NA
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
$0
.
1
6
$6
5
8
21
%
8.
2
HP
S
4
0
0
MH
P
S
3
2
D
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$5
5
.
0
0
$5
5
.
0
0
$0
.
2
3
$8
6
2
32
%
7.
1
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
1
0
0
W
CF
L

1
7
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
$0
.
1
0
33
%
2.
7
-
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
1
0
0
W
CF
L
2
2
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
$0
.
0
5
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
1
0
0
W
CF
L
2
7
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
$4
.
0
0
NA
$2
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
$0
.
0
2
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
1
0
0
W
CF
L
4
2
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
$4
.
0
0
NA
$2
.
0
0
NA
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
$0
.
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
1
5
0
W
CF
L
4
2
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
$4
.
0
0
NA
$2
.
0
0
$1
2
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
3
0
0
W
CF
L
3
0
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
$4
.
0
0
NA
$2
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
4
0
W
Ex
i
t
L
E
D
$1
5
.
0
0
$2
7
.
0
0
NA
$3
5
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$2
5
.
0
0
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L

1
2
W

I
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
_
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L

1
4
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L

1
5
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L

1
7
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L
2
0
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L
2
2
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L
2
6
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
n
t
6
0
W
CF
L
2
7
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
NA
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
4.
5
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L

1
2
W

I
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
1.
2
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L

1
4
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L

1
5
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L

1
7
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L

1
9
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L
2
0
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L
2
2
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
øl
V
20
0
6

F
i
n
A
n
s
w
e
~

E
x
p
r
e
s
s

M
a
r
k
e
t

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
8-
5
.
.
.
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
Re
t
r
o
f
i
t
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
PG
&
E
ET
O
PS
E
BP
A
Av
i
s
t
a
Xc
e
l
I
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
l
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
l
%o
f
SP
B
Fi
x
t
u
r
e
Fi
x
t
u
r
e
En
e
r
g
y
kW
h
kW
Co
s
t
...
.
.
.
~
.
_
-
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L
2
5
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
$4
.
0
0
NA
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
In
c
a
n
d
e
s
c
e
n
t
7
5
W
CF
L
2
6
W
/
s
c
r
e
w
-
i
n
$4
.
0
0
NA
$2
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$6
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
NA
MH
1
0
0
0
6L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
NA
$1
4
0
.
0
0
NA
NA
MH
1
0
0
0
MH
P
S
7
5
0
-
NA
$3
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$1
5
0
.
0
0
$1
3
0
.
0
0
$6
5
.
0
0
MH
4
0
0
6L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
l
H
i
g
h
b
a
y
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$1
2
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
MH
2
5
0
MH
P
S
1
7
5
-
NA
$3
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$2
5
.
0
0
MH
2
5
0
4L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$8
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
NA
NA
MH
4
0
0
4L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$1
2
0
.
0
0
$1
0
5
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
MH
4
0
0
4L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
I
O
C
S
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$1
2
0
.
0
0
$1
0
5
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
MH
4
0
0
6L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
l
H
i
g
h
b
a
y
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$1
2
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
$0
.
0
7
$2
1
9
21
%
3.
7
MH
4
0
0
6L
F
3
2
T
8
E
l
e
c
l
H
i
g
h
b
a
y
l
O
C
S
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$1
2
0
.
0
0
$8
0
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
$0
.
0
4
$2
7
4
33
%
1.
2
MH
4
0
0
6L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
NA
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$5
5
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
$0
.
1
1
$7
0
1
20
%
6.
2
MH
4
0
0
MH
P
S
3
2
0
-
$4
5
.
0
0
$3
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
.
0
0
$5
5
.
0
0
$5
5
.
0
0
MV
4
0
0
4L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
-
$1
0
0
.
0
0
NA
$1
6
0
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$1
0
5
.
0
0
$7
5
.
0
0
MH
2
5
0
3L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
NA
NA
NA
$5
0
.
0
0
$1
0
5
.
0
0
NA
1L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
1L
F
2
8
T
5
$4
.
2
5
NA
NA
$1
5
.
0
0
NA
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
_
.
.
.
_
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
-
-
-
,
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
_
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
_
.
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
2L
F
2
8
T
5
$8
.
5
0
NA
NA
$3
0
.
0
0
NA
3L
F
4
0
T
1
2
M
a
g
3L
F
2
8
T
5
$1
2
.
7
5
NA
NA
$3
0
.
0
0
NA
4L
F
4
0
T
1
2

M
a
g
2L
F
5
5
T
5
H
O
$2
0
.
5
0
NA
NA
$2
5
.
0
0
NA
NA
$0
.
2
0
$7
6
9
31
%
8-
6
20
0

F
i
n
A
n
s
w
e
~

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
.

M
a
r
k
e
t

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
I.
N
e
.
.
.
Appendix C Standard Fixture Wattage Table
A copy of the Standard Fixture Wattage Table legend is provided on the following page. Due to
its size, a hardcopy of the Standard Fixtue Wattage Table is not included here. An electronic
version accompanies this report.
t1Nenr 2006 FinAnswerß Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements C-1
.
.
.
Appendix D Motor Vendor Survey and Results
1. How can we get more motors/volume?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah It's a pain because of the paperwork involved. In CA, the incentive goes to the distributor to
make it worth their while............._-_........................._........._......._..............._.".....~......................................................................................_-_....................._--_....__......._....._-----_.._--_........................._...........................-.............__...........................
2 Utah Require allance members to be serious about partcipating. Make them commit to so many
motors a year.
............................................................................................................._................__................_-_...............................__.__...................................................................................._......_.._..__.._._-_.._._-_.........................._............._~.__.......
Make it easier to apply. Gettng information such as the accunt no. and/or the meter no. is
3 Utah diffcult because the maintenance people buying the motors do not have access to the bils
etc.-accounting people do.
4 Utah Have the customers apply for the incentive and leave them out of it.
5 Utah Make more field visits with distributors
Need to get buy-in from sales people. Right now they see the program as an obstacle rather
6 Utah than a sales tool. It is cumbersome for sales people and they do not see that it gets them
anyting.
1 Washington We are doing all that we can.
2 Washington Show savings and dollars.
3 Washington Advertise
4 Washington We already advertise premium effciency motors and only sell premium effciency.
5 Washington Advertise premium effciency motors.
2. How can we promote the program more?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah No response
2 Utah Work through RMP reps to generate more business. Have them refer business to trade alles
who are serious.
3 Utah No response
4 Utah No response
5 Utah Put on a symposium or conference sponsored by RMP.
6 Utah Need to get sales people to promote it.
1 Washington Advertise.
2 Washington Advertise more. Co-marketing plan.
3 Washington Advertise. Customers care about savings in dollar amounts.
4 Washington Remind customers occasionally.
5 Washington That's done on a corporate leveL.
t1Ne 2006 FinAswer0 Express Market Characterizatin and Program Enhancments 0-1
.
.
.
Motor Vendor Survey and Results AppendixD
3. What percentage of your business is premium now?
Vendor #State Comments
1 Utah No response......................................__...... ... ..... ...................... .._.._.______............................................................ ,_ ......................................__.... ...........n......... ........._......__.........................................__.............. ..................-.....----.......2 Utah 70%.. ...................................... _...._---_.__..__......... ...................... ..................................................................................__.......----_..........._-_.................................__.._.__._......_.._"._--_.................................... ..................._......
3 Utah Hard to say because cyclicaL. 50% maybe a good guess.----------------------.._---_.--.------.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------_._-----------------_._-----_.__.__..._-_.--.--.---.-----------------------------_.__.-._----..----------------------------------------------..._---..-----------------------------------_._---------------------------------_...-_.-
4 Utah No response..........._..._-_.._.. .................................... ---_...._......................................_-_._-_..........................................................................................._._._-_._.............................................................................._-_........_........
5 Utah Unable to comment on such short notice.-.---.----._-------------------------------------------------_._-----------------------------_.-_...__.--_.._-_..----.-----------------_._----_._-.-.---.-------------------_.__..-------------------------------------_._--_.__..__..--------------------------------_._--_...----.
---------------------~----..--..-....----------~~--------__~_':~i.~_~.:_._~~..?~!.~_.~~~.~.:....___ .-------------------..-.--.-.-.------------------.-------------..--------------------------------.--......--...-.
________!________________yvashing~?_~_____~_~___~_~_~_:.~__~~!_~~~~~~i_~_L_______.....____________________________....________________..._____________________.._......____________________________________________________
_________________~______________________~~~h_i~~~?_~_____~~_____________________________________________.________________________________._..._______________________________________________.....____________________________._._____________..____.._....
______________________~______..___.___Wa_~~!~~_!?~____________~~~______________________________.________________________.________________________.__......._________________..__________________.___________________________.____.....______________________......
____..4______________________~~~_~i~g!?~......?.~~(o..~_~?.~________.___..___,_____________________~________________________________________________________.__._______________________________...........__._________
5 Washington Unknown
4. What percentages of your premiums are going though the program?
Vendor # State Comments
1 Utah No response
2 Utah 10%. Not doing it unless they have to in order to get the business.
3 Utah 25%$
4 Utah None. Not using the program as it is too cumbersome
5 Utah No response
6 Utah 1% if that
1 Washington 100%
2 Washington 100%
3 Washington One motor only.
4 Washington Very small percentage. Only when customers mention the program is it offered.
5 Washington No response.
D-2 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements t-1Ne
.
.
.
AppendixD Motor Vendor Survey and Results
5. What do customers prefer-invoice incentive or post purchase application for incentive?
Post purchase application help?
Vendor # State Comments
Would just be shifting the paperwork to the customer, Would rather have the incentive go to
1 Utah the distributor as compensation for doing the paperwork and taking the extra effort to push
premiums.
They would like to see post purchase application from their standpoint. However, from a
2 Utah program standpoint, our participation levels wil go down even further because customers will
stick with standard when they see that it wil be more work for them to go premium.
Might actually be detrimental to the program because customers may not want the hassle of
3 Utah filing. Right now it is easy for the customer, harder for the distnbutor but because the
customer doesn't have to file, the program may be better off...._......._........_............................................................................................_-_...__.........................._--_......................__................................................................................_.........._.._---_...................................._......__....
4 Utah This would be the way to go but would be surprised if we would go this way from what he has
seen from utilities in the past......_.......__.......-_._--_................................................_..................................._.....__............................_-_.................._..................................................._................._..........__.............................._..................._..N_
5 Utah Would definitely help. They have been wanting this since the program started................f----.-.-----------.-.-.--------.--.-.----................................................w...............................................__..._....................._....._._..._......_..__.__...._....._.._...._...................._........._........................~__............_....__..................N..~
6 Utah Would definitely help. Less paperwork. Would be huge! Would bring us to the next leveL. They
want this right now.
1 Washington Like the process as it is to receive incentives now, not later.
2 Washington POS incentives for customers is better, although our company has to wait on the incentive.
3 Washington Advertise to residential customers, commercial customers don't care.
4 Washington POS incentives are a financial burden on our company
5 Washington No response
t1Ne 2006 FinAnsweJ' Expres Market Characerization and Program Enhancments D.3
.
.
.
Appendix E Prescriptive Lighting Incentive Tariff Information
Table E . 1. Retrofit Lighting Incentive Table
4'-1 or 2 T121amp(s) + 1 magnetic
ballast (MB)
4' -3 or 4 Tl2 lamp(s) + MB(s)
8' - 1 or 2 Tl2 lamp(s) + MB(s)
8'-1,2,3 or4 Tl21amps + MB(s)
8'-1,2,3 or4 Tl2 HONHO lamps +
MB(s)
Fluorescent Fixtue Upgrade to 4' 4' - 1 or 2 T121amp(s) + MB or
Premium T8 Fixtures (Lamps Standard T81amp(s) + EB
with intial lumens ;:3100 or 4' 3 4 T12 1 + MB( )-. -or amps sorwattage .:30 W; electronic ballasts Sta dad T8 1 + EBwith BF .:0.8) n amps
8' - 1 or 2 Tl2 lamp(s) + MB(s)
Fluorescent Fixtue Upgrade to
Standard T8 Fixtures (Standard T8
lamps and electronic ballasts with
ballast factor (BF) ::0.88)
Fluorescent Delamping and Standad 4'-2 Tl21amps + MB
T8 Fixtue Upgrade (Standad T8
lamps and electronic ballasts (EB)
with BF ::0.88 - Fixtue removal is
not eligible J
4' -3 Tl2 lamps + MB(s)
4'-4 Tl21amps + MB(s)
4'-4 Tl21amps + MB(s)
4'- i or 2 T8lamps+l electronic ballast $5(EB)
4' - 3 or4 T81amps + EB $10
4' - 2,3 or4 T81amps + EB $10
8' - 1,2,3 or 4 T81amps +EB $10
8' - 1,2,3, or 4 T8 HONHO lamps $15+EB(s)
4' - i or 2 Premium T8 lamp(s) + EB $10
4' - 3 or 4 Premium T8 lamps + EB $15
4' - 2, 3 or 4 Premium T8 lamps + EB $20
4' - 1 Standard T8 lamp +EB $10
4' - 2 or i Stadard T81amp +EB $15
4' - 3 Standard T8 lamps +EB $15
4' - 2 or 1 Stadad T8 lamp +EB $25
4' - 1 Premium T8 lamp +EB $15
4' - 1 or 2 Premium T8 lamp +EB $20
4' - 3 Premium T8 lamps +EB $20
4' - 1 or 2 Premium T8 lamp +EB i $30
::30WT8 lamp $0.50
OOlOW (nominal) CFL hardwire fixture $10
::10W and 00 20W (nomial) CFL $15hardwire fitue
::20W (nominal) CFL hardwire fixture $20
;:40W two-piece screw-in CFL $5
Single-piece screw in CFL (all wattages)$2
3 T5HO lamps (nominal 4') + EB (High $70Bay)
4,5, or 6 T5HO lamps (nominal 4') + EB $75
(High Bay)
2 T5 lamps (nominal 4') + EB (interior $30fixtures)
2 T5HO lamps (nominal 4') + EB $25(interior fitues)
Fluorescent Delamping and Premium 4'-2 T121amps + MB
T8 Fixtue Upgre (Lamps with
initial lumens ~3 1 00 or wattge ::30
W; electronic ballasts with BF ::0.8.
Fixtue removal is not eligible)
T8 Fluorescent Lamp Upgrde
4'-3 T121amps + MB(s)
4'-4 T121amps + MB(s)
4'-4 T121amps + MB(s)
~32 WT81amp
Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL) Incandescent
Incandescent
Incandescent
Incandescent
Incandescent
T5 Fluorescent Fixtue Upgrade ::250 W MR, MV or HPS
:: 400 W MH, MV, or HPS
4' 4 Tl2 lamps + MB(s)
4' 4 Tl2 lamps + MB(s)
t11W 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Charactenzation and Progm Enhancements E-1
.
.
.
Prescriptive Lighting Incentive Tari Information AppendixE
High Intensity Discharge (HID)Upgrades incandescent or tugsten
Based on lamp wattages
::100W Ceraic Metal Halide $25
?:400W MH, MV or HPS
?:750W MH, MV, or HPS
::320W Ceraic Metal Halide
.:400 W Ceramic Metal Halide
$100
$120
~150W and.: 250W MH, MV, or HPS, ~125W and.:l 75W Pulse Star MH $60
or ~l 50W incandescent
Exit Signs
::250W and.: 400W MH, MV, or HPS ~l 75W and .:320W Pulse Start MH $75
:: 400W MH, MV, or HPS .:400W Pulse Sta MH $100
?:1000W MH, MV or HPS g50W Pulse Start MH $100
~ 250 W &.. 750 W MH, MV, or HPS 4' 4, 5, or 6 T8 lamps + EB (High Bay) $75
~750 W MH, MV or HPS 4' - 8 lamp T8 + EB(s) (High Bay) $100
Light Emitting Diode (LED) or Electro
luminescent (EL) Exit Sign - 1 or 2
faced
Incandescent or fluorescent exit sign $15
Lighting Controls Wall or Ceiling Mounted Occupancy
Sensor (per sensor)
Integral occupancy sensor
Photocell (per sensor)
Time clock (per control)
Wall switch or no control $30
$25
$20
$20
No control
No control
No control
LED Lighting Indoor Incandescent, neon, or fluorescent LED h 11 tt' .. 2ft h' hsignage c anne e er signage _ ig
LED chanel letter signage :: 2ft high
$4/linear foot
$6/inear foot
Outdoor Incandescent, neon, or
fluorescent signage LED chanel letter signage .: 2ft high $2/lnear foot
LED channel letter signge :: 2ft high $3/linear foot
Notes for retrofit lighting incentives:
1. Incentives are capped at 50 percent ofEEM Costs
2. 2' V-tube lamps may be substituted for 4' linear fluorescent lamps in the above table.
3. For retrofits of existing equipment, lighting incentives will be paid on a one-for-one equipment relacement basis. If fixtue counts are
chaging, the project may be considered under the approach for measures not listed.
4. Incentives for this measure may not be combined with oter fluorescent fixtue incentives. Incentives for t1s measure wil only be
pad once per facility.
5. Eight-foot T8s, T8 HONHO and High Bay T -8 electronic ballasts are require to have a BF:: 1.2 to be eligible for incentives.
Maximum of two electrouic ballasts per fixtue.
6. To determne the lengt of LED channel letter signs, measur the length of individual letter at the centerline and add the individual
values; do not measure the distance between letters.
E-2 200 FinAnswe~ Express Market Charaterization and Program Enhancements øNenr
.
.
.
AppendixE Prescnptive Ughting Incentive Tanff Information
Table E. 2. New Construction/Major Renovation Lighting Incentive Table
Premium T8 Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade (Lamps 4' - i or 2 Premium T8 lamp(s) + EB
with initial lumens 2:3100 or wattage :,30 W;
electronic ballasts with BF :,0.8) 4' - 3 or 4 Premium T8 lamps + EB
$7
$10
$20
$40
$60
$10
$25
$30
$45
$20
$40
$30
$25
T5 Fluorescent Fixtue Upgrade 2 T5HO lamps (nominal 4') EB (interor fixtures)
3 T5HO lamps (nominal 4') + EB (High Bay)
~ T5HO lamps (nominal 4') + EB(s) (High Bay)
i T5 lamp (nominal 4') + EB (interior fixtues)
2 T5 lamps (nominal 4') + EB (interior fitures)
3 T5 lamps (nominal 4') + EB (interior fixtues)
4' 2:4 T8 lamps + EB(s) (High Bay)
~i OOW Ceraic Metal Halide
;:IOOW Ceramic Metal Halide
T8 Fluorescent Fixture Upgrade (High Bay)
High Intensity Discharge (HID) Upgrdes
Based on lamp wattages
2:125W Pulse Sta MH
Lightig Controls
LED Lighting
Integrl occupancy sensor
Indoor LED channel letter signage :' 2ft high
Indoor LED channel letter signage ;: 2ft high
Outdoor LED channel letter signage :' 2ft high
Outdoor LED chael lettr signage ;: 2ft high
$4/linear foot
$6Iinear foot
$2/linear foot
$3/linear foot
Notes for new constnction and major renovation lighting incentives:
I. Incentives are not available for lighting controls required under the curnt version of the Utah energy code. The date of the building
permit application shall establish the curent version of the Code
2. 2' U-tube lamps may be substituted for 4' linear fluorescent lamps in the above table.
3. Electronic ballasts for High Bay fixtues ar required to have a ballast factor:, 1.2 to be eligible for incentives.
4. The total connected interior lighting power for New Constnction projects required to comply with the energy code must be i 0 percent
lower than the interor lighting power allowance calculated under the curent version of the Uta energy code. The date of the building
permt application shall establish the curent version of the Code. For New Constnction projects not requird to comply with the
energy code, the total connected lighting power must be 10% lower than common practice as determined by the Company.
5. To determne the length of LED channel letter signs, measure the lengt of individual letter at the centerline and add the individual
values; do not measure the distance between letters.
eJJl 2006 FinAnswe~ Express Market Characterization and Program Enhancements E-3
.
.
1338 S. Foothil Drive, #269
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone].ww.nexant.com
.
Attachment 8
TABLE A-
EFFECT ACROSS.
RATE SCHEDULES.
.
.
"'f;
..
;i::Sw(Jì