20100806Hedman Supplemental Testimony.pdf

~. ... ROCKY MOUNTAINPOR
A DIVISIN OF PAIRCORP
Augut 6, 201 0
VI OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secreta
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washigton
Boise, il 83702
.""C.,"., ;._~
Zriin AIH: -6 M1 tü; 23.ù¡:-:o H.v-~
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 .
Re: Case No. PAC-E-IO-07
Rocky Mountain Power is providing supplemental testimony supportg the
prudency determination of the Company's Demand-Side Management programs
as ordered by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission in Order No. 32023.
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for fiing an original and (9) nie copies of Rocky Mountan Power's
supplementa testimony and exhbit. Also enclosed is a CD contag the testimony and
exhbit. To the attention of the Cour Reportr is a paper copy of all documents along with a
CD contanig the testimony and exhbit in its original format.
In Order No. 32023 the Commission stated that it "reserves questions of the prudency and
cost-effectiveness of the Company's DSM programs and expenditues for the Company's
pending rate case (P AC-E-10-07)" and encourged paries "to address these issues in the rate
case." In compliance with Commission Order No. 32023 the Company is providig the
atthed testony and exhbit and requestig a prudency determtion of the Company's
2008 and 2009 DSM program from the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion as par of Case
No. PAC-E-10-07.
All formal correspondence and regardig ths supplemental testimony should be addressed
to:
Ted Weston
Rocky Mounta Power
201 South Mai, Suite 2300
Salt Lae City, Uta 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: ted.weston(ipacificorp.com
Danel E. Solander
Rocky Mounta Power
201 South Mai Stret, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Uta 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: daniel.solander(ipacificorp.com
Communcations regarding discovery matters, includng data requests issued to Rocky
Mounta Power, should be addressed to the followig:
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
Augut 6, 2010
Page 2
By E-mail (preferred):
By reguar mail:
datareguest(ipacificorp.com
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah St., Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Inormal inquiries may be directed to Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Manager at (801) 220-
2963.
VæyyO~
Je~~~
Vice President, Reguation
cc: Service List
Enclosures
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on ths 6th day of Augut, 2010, I caused to be sered, via Overnght
delivery and E-mail, a tre and correct copy of Rocky Mountain Power's Supplementa
Testimony supporting prudency determtion in the Company's Demand-Side
Management progrs as ordere by the IPUC in Order No. 32023 in P AC-E-1 0-07 to
the followig:
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey,
Charered
201 E. Center
P.O. Box 1391
Pocatello, il 83204-1391
E-Mail: elo(iracinelaw.net
Tim Buller
Jason Hars
Agrium, Inc.
3010 Conda Road
Soda Sprigs, il 83276
E-Mail: tbuller(iagrum.com
J AHars(iagrum.com
Brad Purdy
CAPAI
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
E-mail: bmpurdy(ihotmail.com
Anthony Yanel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, Ohio 44140
E-mail: tonytfyankel.net
James R. Smith (E-mail only)
Monsanto Company
P.O. Box 816
Soda Springs, Idao 83276
E-Mail: jim.r.smith(imonsanto.com
Radal C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey,
Chaered
201 E. Center
P.O. Box 1391
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
E-Mail: rcbifacine1aw.net
Michael C. Creamer
Kelsey J. Nunez
GIVNS PURSLEY LLP
601 W. Banock Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, il 83701-2720
E-mail: mcc(igivenspursley.com
KelseyNunez(iGivensPursley.com
Benjamin J. Oto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
P.O. Box 844
Boise, Idaho 83702
E-mail: bottotfidahoconservation.org
Katie Iverson
Brubaker & Associates
17244 W. Cordova Cour
Sunse, Arzona 85387
E-Mail: kiverson(iconsultbai.com
Melinda J. Davison
Davison Van Cleve, P.C.
333 S.W. Taylor, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
E-mal: mjd(idvc1aw.com
Ronad L. Wiliams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise ID, 83702
E-mail: ron(iwiliamsbradbur.com
Paul J. Hickey
Hickey & Evan, LLP
1800 Cary Ave. , Suite 700
PO Box 467
Cheyenne, WY 82003
E-Mail: phickey(ihickeyevans.com
Scott Woodbur
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 W. Washigton (83702)
POBox 83720
Boise, il 83720-0074
E-Mail: scott. woodbury(ipuc.idaho.gov
CuM~A¿Care Meyer . ~
Coordinator, Admsttive Services
ç
?lnftiHG -h A.l't 10: 23i.UI'" l\vv d
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
APPLICATION OF ROCKY )
MOUNTMN PO~R FOR )
APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO ITS )
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES )
AN A PRICE INCREASE OF $27.7 )
MILLION, OR APPROXIMATELY )13.7 PERCENT )
CASE NO. PAC-E-IO-07
Supplemental Testimony of
Brian K. Hedman
ROCKY MOUNTMN PO~R
CASE NO. PAC-E-10-07
August 2010
1 Q.
2 A;
Please state your name, business and business address.
My name is Brian K. Hedman. I am employed by The Cadmus Group, Inc, at 720
3 S.W. Washington, Suite 400, Portland, Oregon, 97205.
4 Qualifications
5 Q.
6
7 A.
8
9
10
11
12
13 Q.
14 A.
15
16
17 Q.
18 A.
19
20 Q.
21 A.
22
What is your current position at The Cadmus Group (Cadmus) and your
employment history?
I joined Cadmus (then Quantec, LLC) in 2002 and hold the position of PrincipaL.
Prior to joining Cadmus I was employed by PacifiCorp for 20 years in a variety of
positions. My last position at PacifiCorp was Manager of DSM Policy. In that
role I was responsible for preparng and fiing the Company's Integrated Resóurce
Plan and energy efficiency programs in Oregon, Washigton, Idaho, California,
Utah and Wyoming.
What are your responsibilties at Cadmus?
I am responsible for designg and evaluating energy effciency and low income
progrms, supporting integrated resource planng and preparng testimony in
support of utility cost of servce, rate design and energy efficiency tariff filings.
VVat is your educational background?
I hold a Bachelor's degree in business from the University of Washington and a
Master's degree in economics from Portland State University.
What other jurisdictions do you work in?
In addition to PacifiCorp, I curently support clients in Oregon, Washigton,
Californa, Uta, Iowa, Missour, Arona, Colorado, Kasas, Nebraska, New
Hedman, Supp - 1
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3 Q.
4 A.
5
6
7
8 Q.
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Q.
20 A.
21
22
Mexico, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., Ontario and British
Colombia.
Have you appeared as a witness in previous regulatory proceedings?
I have testified before regulatory commissions and legislative commttees in
Idaho, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and New York as well as the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. In addition, I have prepared testimony for my
clients in Missour, Kansas, Nebraska, Maryland, Delaware and Washington D.C.
What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
The purose of my testimony is to demonstrate that Rocky Mountain Power's
demand-side management (DSM) investments made on behalf of Idaho customers
were prudent. Specifically, my testimony wil address the following:
. I wil provide an overview ofthe Company's DSM progrs and results
for the period from Januar 1, 2008, through December 31,2009;
. I will explain the generally accepted methodologies used for determining
energy effciency program cost effectiveness and whether the Company
conforms to these methodologies; and,
. I will demonstrte the cost effectiveness of the Company's Idao DSM
programs and why they are prudent and in the public interest.
Are you sponsoring an exhibit as part of your direct testimony?
Yes. I am sponsoring Exhbit No. 56 which was prepared under my supervision
and diection. Exhbit No. 56 documents the benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness
results of Rocky Mounta Power's Idao DSM programs.
Hedman, Supp - 2
Rocky Mountain Power
1 Q.Is this prudency fiing consistent with the memorandum of understanding
2 (MOU) for prudency determination of DSM expenditures that was signed by
3 Rocky Mountain Power, Avista and Idaho Power in December 2009 and by
4 the Idaho Public Utilties Commission staffin January 2010?
5 A.Yes, the fiing is consistent with the MOD. Rocky Mountain Power filed anual
6 reports in March of 2009 and March of 20 1 0 for program years 2008 and 2009
7 respectively. These reports provide the narrative program descriptions, costs,
8 savings and cost effectiveness anticipated by the MOU. The 2009 report also
9 includes the status of the impact and process evaluations.
10 Overview of Idaho DSM Programs
11 Q.Please provide an overview of Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho DSM
12 program portfolio.
13 A.Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho DSM portfolio consists of eight distinct programs
14 offering incentives for a wide variety of energy efficiency measures and
15 parcipation in load management programs to the Company's residential,
16 business and agrcultural customers. Rocky Mountain Power continues to work
17 with their customers and the Idao Public Utilities Commission ("Commssion")
18 to provide a comprehensive suite of DSM programs that provide the greatest
19 opportty for paricipation by all customer sectors.
20 Q.What DSM programs are available to Rocky Mountain Power customers
21 subject to the Electric Servce Schedule No. 191, Customer Efficiency
22 Servces Rate?
23 A.The Company offers eight DSM progrs, consisting of three residential, thee
Hedman, Supp - 3
Rocky Mountain Power
1 agrcultural, and two business programs. Collectively, the programs offer a wide
2 range of services and financial support capable of assisting customers with
3 virtally any energy efficiency project they wish to pursue. The eight DSM
4 programs are as follows:
5 Residential Programs
6 Schedule 21 - Low Income Weatherization
7 Schedule 117 - Refrgerator/Freezer Recycling
8 Schedule 118 - Home Energy Savings Incentive
9 Agricultural Programs
10 Schedtie 72 - Irrgation Load Control Credit Rider
11 Schedule 72A - Irgation Load Control Credit Rider Dispatch Program
12 Schedule 155 - Agrcultual Energy Services
13 Business Programs
14 Schedule 115 - FinAswer Express
15 Schedule 125 - Energy FinAswer
16 In addition to the eight programs, the Company's Idao porton of the Northwest
17 Energy Effciency Alliance (NEA) sponsorship is fuded though the revenues
18 collected from the Customer Effciency Service Rate. With the exception of the
19 Energy FinAwer program as modified to provide incentives, Schedule 125,
20 (available to Idaho customers begig in May, 2008) these programs are
21 ongoing and represent the same progr portfolio for which prudency was
22 determined for program years 2006 and 2007 in Case No. PAC-E-07-05,
23 Commission Order30482.
Hedman, Supp - 4
Rocky Mountain Power
1 Q.
2 A.
What were the Company's DSM results for 2008 and 2009?
Energy efficiency program savings at the meter (including NEEA) in 2008 were
3 10,389 MWH and in 2009 were 14,744 MWH. Rocky Mountain Power's
4 irrgation load management programs (Schedules 72 and Schedule 72a) had
5 partcipating loads under managementof215 MW in 2008 and 258 MW in 2009.
6 Cost Effectiveness Methodology
7 Q.
8
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18 A.
19
20
21
22 Q.
23 A.
What is the general approach to analyzing the cost effectiveness of demand-
side management programs?
Utilities can meet their futue load requirements by increasing their supply of
energy through new generation and purchased power or by reducing those futue
load requirements through energy efficiency and load management programs
(together referred to as demand-side management or DSM) or by a combination
of new supply and DSM. In order to determine the optimal mix of new supply
and DSM, the utility must compare the costs of both their supply and demand side
options. If the cost of a DSM program is lower than the cost of acquirig
additional supply the DSM program is determined to be "cost effective".
How is cost effectiveness ilustrated?
Cost effectiveness is ilustrted though multiple cost-benefit tests. Results are
displayed as the net benefits or as a ratio of benefits to costs. A ratio of the
benefits ofthe resource to the costs of the resource that is greater than 1.0
demonstrtes a resource is cost effective when compared to the alternatives.
What tests are commonly used to determine cost effectiveness?
It is informative to view cost effectiveness from different perspectives. Typically,
Hedman, Supp - 5
Rocky Mountan Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Q.
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15 Q.
16
17 A.
18
-19
20
21 Q.
22
23 A.
cost effectiveness is tested from the utility, paricipant, non-participant and all
customers' perspective. These tests are referred to as the Utilty Cost Test (UCT),
Participànt Cost Test (PCT), Rate Impact Measurement (RIM) and Total
Resource Cost Test (TRC). A variant on the TRC, called the Societal Cost Test,
is often calculated as welL. The Societal Cost Test expands on the TRC by adding
quantifiable non-energy costs and benefits, such as emissions reduction. Another
reference for this test is TRC + Conservation Adder.
Is there a generally accepted formulation of these tests?
Yes. Californa was fist state to formally adopt the tests described above. In
1983 the California Public Utilities Commssion first published the Stadard
Practice Manual with mathematical formulations for each of the tests. Since then,
the formulations contained in that manual have become the industr standad
formulation. The most curent version of the manual is the 2001 version. The
formulations are not specific to California.
Does Rocky Mountain Power's cost effectiveness analysis conform to the
standard tests?
Yes. The models and inputs used by Rocky Mountain Power are based on the
California formulations of the cost effectiveness tests. The Total Resource Cost
test is presented both with and without a 10 percent adder that reflects non-
quantified benefits.
How do the tests account for a customer who would have made an energy
effciency investment without receiving a program incentive?
Each of these tests is calculated based on a "but for" case. That is, ''but for" the
Hedman, Supp - 6
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Q.
15 A.
16
17
18
19 Q.
20 A.
21
22
23
program, what would have happened? In most instances, DSM programs provide
information and incentives to customers to encourage the purchase or adoption of
energy efficiency measures and practices. Absent the program, some of these
customers would have purchased the measures or undertaken the practices on
their own accord. It would not be appropriate to credit the program with changing
these customers' behavior. If they receive an incentive from the program for
these actions, absent program influence, they are considered "free-riders". In
other words, it was not necessary for the utility to provide these customers with an
incentive and the utility should not get credit for their actions. Energy savings
from free-riders are not included in the total program energy savings for the
puroses of cost-effectiveness determination and customer costs associated with
free-riders are not included in the program costs. Any payments by the utility to
the customer are included as costs of the program, however.
How is free-ridership quantified?
Free-ridership is expressed as a net-to-gross factor that combines the impacts of
the free-ridership (incentive recipients that would have purchased the energy
efficiency measure with no incentive) and spilover (additional purchases
influenced by the program but for which no incentive is paid).
How are net-to-gross factors estimated?
In the planng phase net-to-gross assumptions are derived from sources such as
prior evaluations of the Company's progrs and the Data Base of Energy
Effciency Resources (DEER), which contain the results of hundreds of program
evaluations. These ar tyically the factors used in program filings. Net-to-gross
Hedman, Supp - 7
Rocky Mounta Power
1
2
3
4 Q.
5
6
7 A.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
factors are estimated through post implementation evaluation of programs.
Customer interviews and market analysis are used to estimate the free-ridership
and spilover.
Is Rocky Mountain Power's process for determining annual savings and cost
effectiveness consistent with the process used by utilties in other
jurisdictions?
Yes. The process used by Rocky Mountain Power in its anual report is
consistent with that used by other utilities. The costs reflect the actual
expenditues incured by the company while the savings are based on an estimate
derived from the planng assumptions. Rocky Mountain Power reviews program
costs and participation throughout the program year and adjusts the programs to
reflect changes that occur. In addition, Rocky Mountain Power performs thrd
party process and impact evaluations of the programs consistent with the terms of
the MOU. These evaluations help the Company fuher refine the progrs to
increase paricipation, increase energy savings acquisitions and maintain or
improve their cost effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
How do Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho programs compare to other
programs Cadmus has assessed cost effectiveness of or evaluated?
Cadmus has evaluated and assessed the cost effectiveness of hundreds of
programs implemented by utilities nationwide, including PacifiCorp's. The
Company's programs are designed using widely accepted practices that aim to
maximie paricipation while mimiing utility costs and rate impacts. Mid-
coure adjustments to the programs are noted in the anual report and indicate
Hedman, Supp - 8
Rocky Mountain Power
1 that the Company continuously monitors the programs to assure program
2 relevance, market acceptance and cost effectiveness.
3 Idaho DSM Investment Prudency Demonstration
4 Q.
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11 Q.
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19 Q.
20
21 A.
22
23
Why is Rocky Mountain Power requesting a finding of prudence for their
DSM investments in this case?
In Order No. 32023 approving the 1 percent increase in the Company's Schedule
No. 191, Customer Efficiency Servces Rate, the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ordered "that the Commission reserves questions of the prudency
and cost-effectiveness of the Company'sDSM programs and expenditues for the
Company's pending rate case (PAC-E-1O-07)".
Have the Company's Idaho DSM program's undergone any reviews or
evaluations?
Yes. The Company has conducted reviews of the load management programs
through annual program reports and presentations to the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission staff. Program performance results, including cost effectiveness
assessments, were also fied on the Company's DSM program portfolio for the
calendar year reporting periods of 2008 and 2009. In addition, Cadmus is
conducting an evaluation of the 2006-2008 energy effciency programs.
Have these reviews and the analysis results shown in Exhibit No. 56 found
Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho DSM programs are cost-effective?
Yes. The portfolio of programs is cost-effective from both a Total Resource Cost
(TRC) and Utilty Cost Test (UCT) perspective. Exhibit No. 56 shows that the
TRC benefit-to-cost ratio for the overall DSM portfolio for 2008 and 2009
Hedman, Supp - 9
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Q.
19 A.
20
21
22
combined (load management and energy efficiency, excluding NEEA costs and
savings) is 3.7, with a net TRC benefit to customers of over $32 milion (Exhibit
No. 56, Table 2). The TRC and UCT cost for the load management programs
were $ 14.53/kW-yr and $43.24/kW-yr, respectively, and can be compared against
utility avoided costs of$67.05/kW-yr (Exhibit No. 56, Table 3). The 1eve1ized
TRC and UCT cost of the energy efficiency programs were 6.5 cents and 4.4
cents per kWh, respectively, compared against utility avoided costs of 8.8 cents
(Exhbit No. 56, Table 3). Though allowed by the Californa cost effectiveness
formulations, the benefit-to-cost ratios do not include "non-energy benefits or other
fuel benefits and are calculated utilizing net savings, i.e., inclusive of the impacts
of free-ridership and spilover. This presents a conservative estimate of the
program's cost effectiveness. As an overall portfolio, the DSM investments were
also cost-effective from both a Rate Impact Test (RI) and Participant Cost Test
(PCT) perspective with benefit-to-cost ratios of 1.372 and 11.436, respectively
(Exhbit No. 56, Table 2). The energy effciency portfolio was cost-effective
under all cost tests except the RIM test where the benefit-to-cost ratio was .68
(Exhbit No. 56, Tables 4 and 5).
Are the process and impact evaluation of these programs complete?
No. The process and impact evaluations are in various stages of completion.
Field work, sureys and data analysis are largely complete and the quality
assurance process is underway. I expect the results to be finalized by the end of
the year.
Hedman, Supp - 10
Rocky Mountain Power
1 Q.
2 A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Q.
15 A.
Please summarize your conclusions.
The Company's expenditures of Schedule 191 revenue (and the fuds utilized for
irrgation load control participation credits) have been reasonable and prudent. A
portfolio of programs covering all customer classes has been offered with total
savings of over 258 MW of annual load control available and total energy savings
of over 25 GWh (including NEEA) over the 2008 and 2009 calendar periods. A
levelized utility cost per saved kilowatt hour of 4.4 cents has been achieved. The
levelized avoided costs over the same period were 8.8 cents per kWh. From a
conservative UCT perspective, the cost per kW for load management investments
was $43.24/kW-yr against the Company's avoided cost of$67.05/kW-yr. Based
on program performance, anual reports already filed with the Commission and
the analysis provided in Exhibit No. 56, the 2008 and 2009 program costs were
prudently incured.
Does this conclude your testimony?
Yes.
Hedman, Supp - 11
Rocky Mountain Power
Case No. PAC-E-1O-07
Exhibit No. 56
Witness: Brian K. Hedman
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Supplemental Testiony of Brian K. Hedman
2008 and 2009 Energy Effciency Program Results
August 2010
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 56 Page 1 of 4
Case No; PAG-E-10-07
Witness: Brian K. Hedman
The tables below present the cost effectiveness findings of the Idaho 2008-2009 demand
side management (DSM) program portfolio. The cost effectiveness analysis was
conducted using the 2007 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) decrement values for 2008
program year and the 2008 IRP decrement values for the 2009 program year. The
irrigation load control programs were analyzed using the 2007 and 2008 irrgation
avoided cost studies. The portfolio includes the following programs:
Residential Programs
Schedule 21 - Low Income Weatherization
Schedule 117 - Refrgerator/Freezer Recycling
Schedule 118 - Home Energy Savings Incentive
Agricultural Programs
Schedule 72 - Irrigation Load Control Credit Rider
Schedule 72A - Irrgation Load Control Credit Rider Dispatch Program
Schedule 155 - Agrcultual Energy Servces Schedule
Business Programs
Schedule 115 - FinAswer Express
Schedule 125 - Energy FinAswer
Table 1: Common Inputs (2008, 2009)
l;i(iS v i_0 7 %;; ::7/
.aloo 7
7/K;;i:x %;; ;;o 0 //
Discount Rate 7.1%,7.4%
Line Loss Residential 11.389%
Line Loss Commercial 10.698%
Line Loss Irrgation 10.392%
Residential Energy Rate ($/kWh)$0.0804, $0.0831
Commercial Energy Rate ($/kWh)$0.0679, $0.0796
Irrgation Energy Rate ($/kWh)$0.0525, $0.0621
Table 2: 2008-2009 Program Portfolio
All Méasures y
/00 ///Æ/o ~ ~naû~Co~////' //'Wl1 ;;Y 7z "W."o y //~sts iß~;; _~~ %/ 1: a ;yøllt&// 0 0Yij/",)";;/ ;;
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)$11,822,258 $4,218,459 $32,396,201 3.740
+ Conservation Adder
Total Resurce Cost Test (TRC)$11,822,258 $40,198,599 $28,376,341 3.00
No Adder
Utlit Cost Test (UCT)$23,429,849 $40,198,599 $16,768,749 1.716
Rate Impact Test (RIM)$29.300,935 $40,198,599 $10,897,664 1.372
Partcipant Cost Test (PCT)$1,694,377 $19,377,082 $17,682,705 11.436
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 56 Page 2 of 4
Case No. PAC-E-10-07
Witness: Brian K. Hedman
Table 3: 2008-2009 TRC and UCT (broken down by
Energy Effciency and Load Management Portfolios)
Electric DSM Program Portolio Electric Load Management Portolio
Total Resource $5,091,493 Total Resource Cost $6,730,764
Cost (TRC)(TRC)
Weighted Average 11.97 Total Resource Benefis $37,113,227
Measure Life
kWh Energy Benefi Cost Ratio 5.51
Savings 10,680,403
TRC Levelized $0.065 TRC Cost per kW $14.53
Cost
Utilty Cost (UCT)$3,397,116 Utilty Cost (UCT)$20,032,734
Weighted Average 11.97 Utilty Benefits $33,739,297
Measure Life
kWh Energy Benefi Cost Ratio 1.68
Savings 10,680,403
UCT Levelized $0.044 Utility Cost per kW $43.24
Cost
Comparative $0.088 Comparative Electric $67.05
Electric Utilty Utilty Avoided Cost
Avoided Cost
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 56 Page 3 of 4
. Ci:se No. PAC-E-10-07
Witness: Brian K. Hedman
Table 4: 2008-2009 TRC and UCT (Energy Efficiency
Program Portfolio with low income program broken out)
Total Resource Cost Regular Income Limited Income Portolio Total Portolio
Test Portolio
Avoided Costs $6,022,106 $437,196 $6,459,302
10% avoided cost $602,211 $43,720 $645,930
adder
Total TRC Benefis $6,624,317 $480,915 $7,105,232
Non-Incentive Costs $1,686,345 $1,686,345
Customer Costs $3,066,791 $338,357 $3,405,148
Total TRC Costs $4,753,136 $338,357 $5,091,493
Net TRC Benefis $1,871,181 $142,558 $2,013,739
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.39 1.42 1.40
Utilty Cost Test Regular Income Limited Income Portolio Total Portolio
Portolio
Avoided Costs $6,022,106 $437,196 $6,459,302
Total UCT Benefis $6,022,106 $437,196 $6,459,302
Non-Incentive Costs $1,686,345 $1,686,345
Incentive Costs $1,372,414 $338,357 $1,710,771
Total UCT Costs $3,058,759 $338,357 $3,397,116
Net UCT Benefits $2,963,347 $98,839 $3,062,186
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.97 1.29 1.90
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 56 Page 4 of 4
Case No. PAC-E-10-07
Witness: Brian K. Hedman
Table 5: 2008-2009 PCT and RIM (Energy Effciency
Program Portfolio with low income program broken out)
Participant Test Regular Income Limited Income Portolio Total Portolio
Portolio
Lost Revenues $5,604,215 $470,898 $6,075,113
Total Lost Revenues $5,604,215 $470,898 $6,075,113
Customer Project Costs $3,066,791 $338,357 $3,405,148
Incentive Costs ($1,372,414)($338,357)($1,710,771)
Total Participant Costs $1,694,377 $0 $1,694,377
Net Participant Benefits $3,909,838 $470,898 $4,380,736
Benefi Cost Ratio 3.31 3.59
Non-Participant Test Regular Income Limited Income Portolio Total Portolio
Portolio
Avoided Costs $6,022,106 $437,196 $6,459,302
Total Avoided Costs $6,022,106 $437,196 $6,459,302
Lost Revenues $5,604,215 $470,898 $6,075,113
Incentive Costs $1,372,414 $338,357 $1,710,771
Non-Incentive Costs $1,686,345 $0 $1,686,345
Total Non-Participant $8,662,974 $809,255 $9,472,229
Costs
Net Non-Participant ($2,640,868)($372,059)($3,012,927)
Benefits
Benefit Cost Ratio 0.70 0.68