20130524Application.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POMIER
v - n;'!' it-:r-i,:-,'
?0ll H$,y ZL fiti |il: l3 201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 8411I
rl..l:,i'.-- .' ,-I t--tt l', :'. j-_: '
iJ r li-l I
May 24,2013
VA OVERIVIGHT DELIWRY
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702-5983
Re: CASE NO. PAC-E-13-10
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOT]NTAIN POWER
FOR AUTHORITY TO REYISE ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE 155
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for filing seven (7) copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Application for
authority to modifu Electric Service Schedule No. 155, Agricultural Energy Services. The
Company proposes to suspend the prescriptive measures in the Idaho Agricultural Energy
Services program. A detailed discussion of these changes is included in the Company's
Application. Included as Attachment A to this filing are the Electric Service Schedule No. 155
clean and legislative versions of the tariff sheets.
Effective with the Commission order on this filing and until further notice, the following flow-
reduction measures will be ineligible for incentives:
. Nozzles, drains, and gaskets for hand lines, wheel lines, and solid-set sprinkler systems. Sprinkler packages and regulators for pivot and linear systems
All formal correspondence regarding this Application should be addressed to:
Ted Weston Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300 201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 841I I Salt Lake City, Utah 841I I
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
May 24,2013
Page2
Communications regarding discovery matters, including data requests issued to Rocky Mountain
Power, should be addressed to the following:
By E-mail (prefened):
By regular mail:
datareque st@pacifi corp. com
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR97232
Informal inquiries may be directed to Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (801)
220-2963.
ruW,
Vice President, Demand-Side Management
Enclosure
Mark C. Moench, (ISB # 8946)
Daniel E. Solander, (ISB # 8930)
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 8411I
Telephone: (80 l) 220-4014
Email: [e-mail]
daniel. solander@pacifi corp. com
Attorneys for RoclE Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR
AUTHORITY TO REVISE ELECTRIC
SERVICE SCHEDULE I55
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES
CASE NO. PAC.E.B-TO
APPLICATION
Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp, ("Rocky Mountain Power" or the
"Company"), hereby respectfully makes application to the ldaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") for an order approving its proposed revisions to electric service
schedule 155, Agricultural Energy Services effective July 15, 2013.
In support of this Application, Rocky Mountain Power states as follows:
1. Rocky Mountain Power is authorized to do and is doing business in the state
of Idaho. The Company provides retail electric service to approximately 72,000 customers in
the state of Idaho and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
2. This Application is filed pursuant to ldaho Code $$ 61-301, 6l-307,61-622,
and,6l-623. In particular, Idaho Code $ 6l-623 empowers the Commission to determine the
Page I . APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE, AGRICULTURAL BNERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
propriety of proposed rate schedules, $$ 6l-307 and 6l-622 require Commission approval
prior to any increase in rates, and $ 6l-301 requires Idaho retail electric rates to be just and
reasonable.
3. Communications regarding this Application should be addressed to:
Ted Weston
Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 8411I
E-mail: [e-mail]
Daniel E. Solander
Senior Counsel
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 841I I
E-mail: daniel. solander@pacifi corp.com
In addition, Rocky Mountain Power requests that all data requests regarding this
application be addressed to:
By email (prefened)
By regular mail
datareq ue st@paci ficorp. com
ted. we ston@ paci fi corp. c om
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multromah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR97232
Informal inquiries related to this application may be directed to Ted Weston,
(80r)220-2963.
4. The Company is filing this Application to amend the Agricultural Energy
Services program to suspend: (l) Nozzle Exchange Program; and (2) incentives for the pivot
and linear equipment measures listed in Table 1 of the current Schedule 155.
5. A third party evaluation of the company's program by Navigant Consulting
indicated there was a "high degree of uncertainty regarding program energy savings, and
Page 2 - APPLICATTON TO MODIFY TI{E AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
indicated the program may not be providing significant savings."l The complete Navigant
Consulting evaluation of the progmm is included as Attachment B to this Application. The
evaluators cited the following factors as possible reasons for the uncertainty regarding
program energy savings for the flow reduction measures:
a) Reported energy savings for the majority of the energy efficiency measures that
reduce flow were based on deemed or unit energy savings (UES) values,
consequently the evaluators were unable to establish a reliable baseline for a
bottom-up engineering analysis. It should be noted that at the time of the
evaluation the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) UES values for similar flow
reduction measures were considered out of compliance with RTF guidelines
indicating they were scheduled for review and update. This issue was resolved on
April 16, 2013 when the RTF approved updates to these UES values which can be
found at http ://rtf.nwcouncil.org//measures/measure.asp?id:84.
b) Farmers may opt to participate in the program in anticipation of future increases
in watering requirements creating a self-selection bias in the analysis of the billing
data and masking actual savings realized.
c) Mobility of non-center-pivot and non-pump specific measures could have reduced
the applicability of a retrospective billing analysis because energy impacts
occurred across multiple meters.
d) Lack of good data on crop planting history or participants' expansion efforts
introduced uncertainty regarding energy consumption due to the different
I Navigant Consulting, Inc., Draft Final Evaluation Report for Idaho's Irrigation Energy
Savers Program (PY 2009-2011), May 10,2013, Pg 2, Section 1.3.1.
PAge 3 - APPLICATION TO MODIFY TTIE AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
requirements pre and post-installation of the measures.
e) The impact of growers bringing acreage in and out of production and the
subsequent impacts on water use and energy consumption.
f) Lack of information on soil characteristics for various participants impeded
efforts to understand moisture retention at participant sites, and subsequent
impacts on watering requirements.
g) Where multiple measures were installed the resulting interaction complicated the
analysis beyond the approved sampling methodology. The lack of baseline data
combined with unknowns regarding the relative magnitude of the varying
measures increased uncertainty.2
6. The program evaluation findings resulted in the following combined 2009-
2011 cost effectiveness ratios. The resource acquisition from a utility perspective was cost-
effective, but the total resource look and other cost tests returned benefit to cost ratios below
one.
7. Based on these results the Company requested an additional review of
2 Navigant Consulting, Inc., Final Evaluation Report for Idaho's Irrigation Energy Savers
Program (PY 2009-2011), May 10,2013, pg 3, Item 7.
PAge 4 - APPLICATION TO MODIFY TI{E AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
BenefiUCost Test Performed Evaluated
Gross Savings
Evaluated
Net Savings
Evaluated
Costs
Evaluated
Benefits
B/C Ratio
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)1,984,864 r,478,158 $3,072,840 $2,3 r 3,002 0.75
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)t,984,864 t,478, t 58 $3,072,840 $2,102,729 0.68
Utility Cost Test (UCT)I,984,864 1,478,159 $r,93s,229 $2,102,729 1.09
Rate Impact Test (RIM)1,984,864 I,478,158 $2,956,043 $2,102,729 0.71
Participant Cost Test GCT)1,984,864 1,478, l 58 $2,690,990 92,237.r55 0.83
individual Irrigation Energy Savers measures. Results of the Total Resource Cost test (TRC)
and the Utility Cost Test (UCT) from this review are included in the table below.
TRC UCT
Measure Grouo
Program
Year Eval Hish Low Eval Hish Low
Nozzle Exchense 2009-1 I 0.00 3.90 02.70\0.00 3.47 r r.3t)
Gasket 2009-t l 0.00 (0.25)07.73\0.00 (0.22\( 15.43)
Nozzles 2009-t t 0.00 14.49 G.77\0.00 13.80 (4.54\
Drains 2009-t I 0.00 9.72 l. t6 0.00 8.87 1.06
PivoUlinear Uperade 2009-t I (0.78)(0.41)1.24)1.22\(0.63)r.92\
Sprinkler Packaqe 2009-11 (0.84)(0.46)n.221 (1 321 0.72\1.92\
Pressure Reoulator 2009-11 0.00 0.32 1.53)0.00 0.42 (2.00)
System Redesign 2009-11 1.54 1.85 1.10 2.75 3.30 1.96
VFD 2009-11 3.72 3.72 3.72 5.48 5.48 5.48
Other Svstem Redesion 2009-11 1.68 2.41 0.94 2.19 3.14 1.23
Gravitv Svstem 2009-11 0.64 0.81 0.48 2.23 2.79 1.66
Pump Upqrade 2009-11 0.00 0.25 (1 .61)0.00 0.33 Q.15\
8. The Navigant review indicates that while there is uncertainty regarding the
analysis it appears that the Nozzle Exchange (including gaskets and drains) and prescriptive
pivot and linear system upgrades are not cost effective, based on the information available.
9. Cost effectiveness and energy savings can be evaluated with more certainty
through custom analysis. For this reason, suspended Agricultural Energy Services measures
will continue to be available for incentives through the custom option. Custom analysis is
based on pre-installation measurements to develop savings estimates and post-installation
verification of savings on a site by site basis and should enable a more accurate assessment of
project savings.
10. Results in Attachment C: Memorandum, Idaho Agricultural Energy Efficiency
Program Cost Effectiveness show that removing Nozzle Exchange and Pivot and Linear
Page 5 - APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
Irrigation system upgrades and allowing the measures in the custom program, will improve
the economic performance of the progmm in 2013. Program economics are also improved for
the 2014 - 2016 period with the program passing cost-effectiveness under the PTRC, TRC,
UCT and PCT tests.
11. Going forward, all 2013 Idaho Agricultural Energy Services pro$am
incentive applications received with an equipment purchase date prior to the effective date of
the new program tariff will be eligible for incentives based on the current program if the
application is submitted within 90 days of the new tariff effective date. For equipment
purchased after the effective date of the new program tariff, eligibility will be based on the
new program tariff, and incentives for all measures will be available through the custom
analysis. Customers must contact the Company prior to making any equipment changes.
12. The Company does not intend to reinstate prescriptive incentives until greater
savings confidence can be gained, through review and presentation of available engineering
data, of the relationship between leaks and energy savings and a supportable evaluation
methodology can be implemented.
13. The evaluation plan will be revised to reflect the suspension of the flow-
reduction measures. An engineering approach will be used rather than a billing analysis for
the impact evaluation methodology. The evaluation for the 2012-2013 program years is
planned for 2014.
14. Rocky Mountain Power believes that a technical hearing is not necessary to
consider the issues presented herein and respectfully requests that this Application be
processed under Modified Procedure, i.e., by written submissions rather than by hearing, in
Page 6 - APPLICATION TO MODTFY THE AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
accordance with RP 201 et seq.
WHEREFORE, Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests that the Commission
issue an Order (l) authorizing that this matter may be processed by Modified Procedure, and
(2) implementing the proposed changes effective July 15, 2013 to Electric Service Schedule
155 Agricultural Energy Services.
DATED: May 24,2013.
Respectfully submitted,
V/Q,,0-6,71/A/'"J'--
Mark C. Moench
Daniel E. Solander
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
PAge 7 . APPLTCATION TO MODIFY THE AGRICULTTJRAL ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM
Attachment A
Proposed Tariffs
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP
I.P.U.C. No.1 Fourth Revision of Sheet No. B.3
Canceling Third Revision of Sheet No.8.3
Schedule
No.
135
155
t9t
300
400
401
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCIIEDULES - Continued
Class of Service
Net Metering Service
Agricultural Energy Services - Optional for Qualifuing Customers
Customer Effrciency Services Rate Adjustrnent
Regulation Charges
Special Contract
Special Contract
Sheet
No.
135.1 - 135.3
lss.l - 155.6
l9l
300.1 - 300.4
400.1
401.1
Schedule numbers not listed are not currently used.
* These schedules are not available to new customers or premises.
Submitted Under Case No. PAC-E-13-10
ISSUED: INday24,2013 EFF'ECTM: July 15,2013
YHFtr,^HIVIOUNTAIN
LP.U.C. No.1
First Revision of Sheet No. 155.4
Canceling Original Sheet No. 155.4
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES SCHEDULE NO. 155 (Continued)
DEFINITIONS: (Continued)
Retrofit: Changes, modifications or additions to systems or equipment serving
existing acreage or loads.
INCENTIVES FOR EEMS:
Enerry Efficiency Incentives: Program Administrator or Company shall
establish procedures and requirements for providing Energy Efficiency Incentives
to Customers which shall be posted on the Company web site. Energy Efficiency
Incentives include amounts available according to the energy, demand and cost
formula listed below. All proposed Energy Efficiency Projects are subject to
Program Administrator or Company approval prior to offering an Energy
Efficiency Incentive Agreement or Application. Program Administrator or
Company will establish Energy Efficiency Project approval criteria and post the
criteria on the Company web site.
Energy Efficiency Incentives made available for installation of EEMs pursuant to
an Energy Efficiency Incentive Agreement or Application shall be the lesser of
the sum of (a) and (b) OR (c):
(a) $0.12 lkwh for the Annual kWh savings as determined using Program
Administrator or Company provided or approved engineering analysis;(b) $50/kW for Average Monthly On Peak kW savings determined using
Program Administrator or Company provided or approved engineering
analysis.(c) 50% of the EEM Cost as determined by the Program Administrator or
Company.
(Continued)
Submitted Under Case No. PAC-E-13-10
ISSUED: May24,2013 EFFECTM: July 15,2013
YHF_,fil[,LyouNrArN
I.P.U.C. No. I
X'irst Revision of Sheet No. 155.6
Canceling Original Sheet No. 155.6
AGRICULTURAL EI\IERGY SERVICES SCIIEDT LE NO. 155 (Continued)
PROVISIONS OF SERYICE: (Continued)
(2)EEM Inspection
Program Administrator or Company may inspect any EEMs which are
funded by or installed under this program. Satisfactory inspection by
Program Administrator or Company will be required prior to receiving
Energy Efficiency Incentives specified in the Energy Efficiency Incentive
Agreement or approved Application.
Measure Perfomance Verifi cation/Evaluation
Program Administrator and/or Company may verifr or evaluate the energy
savings of installed Energy Efficiency Measures specified in the Energy
Efficiency Incentive Agreement or approved Application. This
verification may include a telephone survey, site visit, review of system
operating characteristics, and pre- and post-installation of monitoring
equipment as necessary to quantiff actual energy savings.
Energy Effrciency lncentives will not be made available to induce fuel
switching by Customer.
(3)
(4)
ELECTRIC SERVICE REGULATIONS: Service under this Schedule is subject to
the General Rules and Regulations contained in the tariff of which this Schedule is a part, and to
those prescribed by regulatory authorities.
Submitted Under Case No. PAC-E-13-10
ISSUED: May24,2013 EFFECTM: July 15,2013
-ROCKYMOUNTAIN<POV{ER\ A DTVTSTON OF PACIFICORP
I.P.U.C. No. 1 Original Sheet No. 155.7
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES SCHEDULE NO. 155 (Continued)
Table l. Pivot Eouinment Enersv Efficiencv Measures
Category Replace with Customer
incentive
Pivot Span Low
Pressure Drains
Existing pivot low pressure
drains
New low pressure drain replacement parts or
entire drain assemblies
$4/each
Sprinkler Pressure
Resulators
Existing sprinkler pressure
resulators H:ii*::'",1i,ffi ,fi *',l2tSl**
Sprinkler Package Existing sprinkler package
sn,m/acre
i:U#*fr Packaee withratnow s
t,orol"'Dual Sprinkler
Packages
Existing sprinkler package
with a design flow > 7.5
snm/acre-iltri:iHn##t[isHl's X:",0,,of"'
2). Minimum 80 heads
are considered part ofthe
pressure regulators and
for incentives.
Notes for Table l:
l). All sprinklers on a center pivot must be
maximum 170 heads per center pivot. 3). Dro
new sprinkler package and are not eligiblel
sprinkier packages installed on linear or-fptdu'
indi
Submitted Under Advice Letter No. 06-06
ISSUED: August 14,2006 EFFECTM: September 15, 2006
-ROCKYMOUNTAINYpowea\ a orvrsror oF PAcrFtcoRP
I.P.U.C. No. I Thir+FourttL Rwision of Sheet No. B.3
Canceling Seeen+Mfglnevision of Sheet No. B.3
Schedule
No.
135
155
l9l
401
300
400
ELECTRIC SERYICE SCHEDULES - Continued
Class of Seryice
Net Metering Service
Agricultural Energy Services - Optional for Qualifuing Customers
Customer Efficiency Services Rate Adjustrnent
Regulation Charges
Special Contract
Special Contract
Sheet
No.
135.1 - 135.3
155.1 - tss.c+
191
300.1 - 300.4
400.1
401.1
Schedule numbers not listed are not currently used.* These schedules are not available to new customers or premises.
Submitted Under Case No. PAC-E-10473-10
ISST]ED:EFF'ECTTVE:
VROCKY MOUNTAIN-lfPorllER
\ r orusor or mcrrrconp
LP.U.C. No. I
First Revision of Sheet No. 155.4 +
Cancelinq Original Sheet No. 155.4
Fomattedt Tab stops: 6.31", Right + Not at
6.69'
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERYICES SCHEDULE NO. 155 (Continued)
DEFINITIONS: (Continued)
Retrofit: Changes, modifications or additions to systems or equipment serving
existing acreage or loads.
INCENTIVES FOR EEMS:
eqqi
€empany u'eb site' Dquipment installed en pivet er lineer/leteral systems rvill net
tl^is Sehedule; but will be eligible for ameunts listed in Table t err if net listedt
belo*'
Energy Efliciency Incentives: Program Administrator or Company shall
establish procedures and requirements for providing Energy Efficiency Incentives
to Customers which shall be posted on the Company web site. Energy Efficiency
Incentives include amounts ffiavailable according to
the energy, demand and cost formula listed below. All proposed Energy
Efficiency Projects are subject to Program Administrator or Company approval
prior to offering an Energy Efficiency Incentive Agreement or Application.
Program Administrator or Company will establish Energy Efficiency Project
approval criteria and post the criteria on the Company web site.
Per aU ggVs net etl Energy
Efficiency Incentives made available for installation of EEMs pursuant to an
Energy Efficiency Incentive Agreement or Application shall be shallbe-the lesser
of the sum of (a) and (b) OR (c):(a) $0.12 /kwh for the Annual kWh savings as determined using Program
Administrator or Company provided or approved engineering analysis;(b) $50/kW for Average Monthly On Peak kW savings determined using
Program Administrator or Company provided or approved engineering
analysis.(c) 50o/o of the EEM Cost as determined by the Program Administrator or
Company.
(Continued)
Submitted Under AC+iee-Cgge l,etterNo. 0gEAg-E:!3:10
ISSUED: @2006tu!yl12U3
EFFECTIVE: Sepena*+-l*
VROCKY MOUNTAIN-apwee
\ A O|VTS|ON OF PACTFTCORP
LP.U.C. No. I
First Revision of Sheet No. 155.6 +
Canceline Original Sheet No. 155.6
Formattcd: Tab stops: 6.31", Right + Not at
6.59"
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY SERVICES SCHEDULE NO. 155 (Continued)
PROVISIONS OF SERVICE: (Continued)
EEM Inspection
Program Administrator or Company may inspect any EEMs which are
funded by or installed under this program. Satisfactory inspection by
Program Administrator or Company will be required prior to receiving
Energy Efficiency Incentives specified in the Energy Efficiency Incentive
Agreement or approved Application.
Measure Performance Verification/Evaluation
Program Administrator and/or Company may verifr or evaluate the energy
savings of installed Energlr Efficiency Measures specified in the Energy
Efficiency Incentive Agreement or approved Applicatioq--nezzles--er
equipment reeeived &
estiiena€n+-oeeration. This verification may include a telephone survey,
site visit, review of system operating characteristics, and pre- and post-
installation of monitoring equipment as necessary to quantifr actual energy
savings.
Energy Efficiency Incentives will not be made available to induce fuel
switching by Customer.
ELECTRIC SERVICE REGULATIONS: Service under this Schedule is subject to
the General Rules and Regulations contained in the tariff of which this Schedule is a part, and to
those prescribed by regulatory authorities.
€en+inueg)
Submitted Under Advieelefte+eglg No. 06-06P,2\1C-[[- ! !
ISSUED:@
2006tuL!l-20t3
(2)
(3)
(4)
EFFECTIVE: Septembeil+
Attachment B
Idaho's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Final Evaluation Report for Idaho's Irrigation Energy
Savers Program (PY 2009-2011)
Prepared for:
Rocky Mountain Power
YFEtr,^H"YO'NTAIN
Prepared by:
N AV I C A N T rnpartnershipwith CMI
Navigant Consulting, [rc.
1375 Walnut Street
Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
303.728.2500
www.navisantconsultins.com
May 1Q 20L3
Energy Market Innovations, Inc.
83 Columbia St
Suite 303
Seattls WA 98104
206-621,-11,60
www.emiconsultine.com
NAvI CANT
Executive Summary ................ L
L.1. Program Overview... ..................1
1..2 Evaluation Objectives ................ L
1.3 Program Impact Evaluation.. .........................2
1.3.1 Key Impact Evaluation Findings ...............,.........2
1..3.2 Realization Rates........... ....................3
1.3.3 Cost-Effectiveness ........5
L.4 Process Evaluation .....................6
1..4.1. Overall Process Evaluation Findings ..................7
L.5 Program Evaluation Recommendations ...........................8
Introduction ............ ............... L0
2.1. Evaluation Objectives ..............10
2.2 Program Description ................10
2.3 Program Changes from 2009 to 2011 ..........11
2.4 Program Participation................... ................12
2.5 Program Theory and Logic Mode1......... ..........................12
3 Methodology
3.1 Impact Methodology ................16
3.1.1 Project File Review ..........................17
3.1..2 Sampling Framework Development................. .....................17
3.1.3 Evaluation Approach .....................18
3.1..4 Gross Energy Realization Rate Calculation.............. .............23
3.1.5 Net-to-Gross Estimates. ..................23
3.1..6 Program Cost-Effectiveness......... .......................24
3.2 Notes on Validity and Reliability of Impact M&V Findings................ ..................24
3.2.1. Reducing Uncertainty from Sample Selection Bias............. ......................25
3.2.2 Reducing Uncertainty of Physical Measurement Error...... ......................25
3.2.3 Reducing Uncertainty of Site Visit Analysis Error....... ........25
3.3 Process Methodology ...............25
3.3.1 Overview of steps in the process eva1uation.................. .......26
3.3.2 Process Evaluation Research Questions... .........26
3.3.3 Program Documentation Review ......................27
3.3.4 Logic Model Development............... ..................27
3.3.5 Process Data Collection Activities................. .........................27
3.3.5 Process Data Analysis and Synthesis ................29
Impact Findings. ....................30
4.1, Analysis Gross kWh Savings .......................30
4.1,.1, Results from the Site Visit Analysis..... ..............30
4.1,.2 Results from the Billing Data Analysis ................ .................3L
76
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page i
NAvTcANT
4.1.3 Merger of Results from Two Analysis Methods into Final Evaluated Savings..........35
4.1..4 Overview of Statistical Validity, Confidence and Precision .........................................35
4.1,.5 Evaluated Results at the Measure Group Level .......... .........36
4.2 Net kWh Savings....... ...............37
4.3 Cost Effectiveness Calibration and Analysis................... ....................38
Process Findings. ...................49
5.1 Participant Findings..... ............49
5.1..1. Program Satisfaction .......................51
5.1,.2 Program Awareness and Motivation............... ......................52
5.1.3 Program Process and Satisfaction.............. ........53
5.1..4 Program Influence ..........................57
5.1.5 Further Energy Efficiency Opportunities and Barriers....... ......................61
5.2 Idaho Non-Participant Findin8s................. ......................64
5.2.1. Awareness of Rocky Mountain Power Programs.... .............65
5.2.2 Non-Participant Energy Efficiency Improvements............... ....................67
5.2.3 Motivations for Pursuing Efficiency Improvements............... ..................69
5.2.4 Further Energy Efficiency Opportunities and Barriers....... ......................70
5.3 Trade Ally Findings................ ......................71.
5.3.1 Satisfaction ..................71.
5.3.2 Program Awareness and Motivation............. ........................71.
5.3.3 Training Roles and Communication............. ........................72
5.3.4 Marketing.. ..................72
5.3.5 Customer Invo1vement.................... ....................73
5.3.6 Effects of the Program............... ..........................74
5.4 Overall Process Findings..... .........................75
5.4.7 Process Research Findings ............75
Program Evaluation Recommendations ...............80
Navigant lmpact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page ii
xAvrcANT
This report describes the Impact and Process Evaluation of Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy
Savers program (IES) offered in Idaho f.or 2009 through 2011, and includes findings and
recommendations. These evaluation results provide feedback that can improve program delivery and
cost effectiveness in future program cycles.
7.7 Progrnm Ooeruiew
The Irrigation Energy Savers program offers Idaho irrigation customers (rate Schedule 10) the
opportunity to increase the efficiency of their agricultural irrigation systems through implementation of
energy-efficiency measures and education. The measures and services incentivized through the Rocky
Mountain Power program are intended to improve irrigation system efficienry either through upgrades
to individual components (e.g. tuning center pivots by replacing nozzles to evenly distribute the water
being applied), through the addition of control devices such as Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs), or
through the reduction of total water pumped (e.g. replacing wom gaskets and drains to reduce leaks).
Specifically, the program offers the following incentives and services:
Table 1. Program Incentives and Services
Pivot/Linear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
Pressure Regulators
Sprinkler Packages
Nozzles
Gaskets
Drains
VFDs
Pump Upgrades
Conversion to gravity
systern
Other System Redesigns
System Analysis Service
Replace wom parts to reduce pressure at nozzle, to reduce
flow
Retunes pivotflinear to more evenly distribute water
Replacing worn nozzles to improve water distribution and
reduce nozzle flow rate
Reducingwater leakage totrim pump runtime
Reduces pumping flow rate during same run time for
energy savings, additional savings if run time is reduced
Optimizing part load pump performance, reducing energy use
Optimizing pump sizing and efficiency
Community level gravity pressurized system replaced canal
distribution and nearly eliminates irrigation energy use
Custom performance improvements to irrigation system
System crcnsultations and pump tests, no savings were daimed
for this service offering. Intent of service offering is to identify
site specific energy savings for Systern Redesign measures
System Redesign
System Analysis
A more detailed description on the Irrigation Energy Savers program can be found in Section 2.2
1.2 Eztaluation Objectioes
Rocky Mountain Power requested an evaluation of the Irrigation Energy Savers program in Idaho. This
evaluation addresses the following objectives:
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 1
NAv I CANT
, To verify the annual and combined2009-201L gross and net energy impactsl of Rocky Mountain
Powels Irrigation Energy Savers Program
" To review the effectiveness of program operations, document achievements and identify
opportunities for process improvements
> To characterize participant and non-participant motivations in upgrading their irrigation system
, To perform program cost effectiveness calculations for each of the three years evaluated as well
as for the 2009-20L1program rycle as a whole, and provide feedback on input assumptions
> To provide Rocky Mountain Power findings for regulatory reporting
7.3 PtogramltnpactEoaluation
The impact evaluation of Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers includes:
" Establishing post-implementation performance for installed measures and activities
" Quantifying the impacts of incentivized measures and activities on annual gross energy
consumption while accounting for any interactions among technologies
" Explaining discrepancies between the results of this study and the reported savings estimates.
Evaluation metrics and parameters reported by this effort include:
, Gross program/ projec! and measure level energy savings estimates and realization rates.
> Energy usage profiles for irrigation pump stations obtained through on-site Measurement &
Verification (M&V) activities
> Net program savings estimates and realization rates as a function of both spillover and free
ridership
1.3.1 Key lmpact Evaluation Findings
There is reason to doubt that the program is providing expected energy savings.
The Evaluation Team utilized both a Site Visrt Analysis (based on data collected during visits to
participant sites) as well as a comprehensive Billing Data Analysis which included billing data from all
program participants. The Site Visit Analysis combines the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocol (IPMVP)'z options B & C by collecting temporary trend data on-site and leveraging
historical billing recordsi the Billing Data Analysis utilizes billing records and complies with IPMVP
option C. Both evaluation methods yielded a high degree of uncertainty regarding program energy
savings, and indicated the program may not be providing significant savings.
The high deviations between reported and evaluated energy savings could be due to a combination of the
following factors:
1 Demand impacts (kW) are not calculated due to uncertainty of project level savings and the program's emphasis on
energy (kWh) savings.
2 Refer to Appendices for detailed description of IPMVP options.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page2
1.
NAvr cANT
Reported energy savings for the majority of the energy efficienry measures are based on deemed
values3, either directly or through a quasi-custom approach. Since the reported impacts for
deemed measures are not calibrated or confirmed via measurement the evaluators are unable to
establish a reliable baseline for a bottom-up engineering analysis of energy impacts (i.e. the
leakage rates from prior to installing the measure could not be gauged after the fact).
Farmers may opt to participate in the program in anticipation of future increases in watering
requirements. This results in a self-selection bias in the billing analysis as a net increase in kWh
energy use (even though specific measures may actually be yielding positive energy savings
impacts).
"Measure mobili!/'was observed; non-center-pivot and non-pump-specific measures (e.9.
measures installed on handlines) are generally gathered to a single location at the end of a
growing season. Changes in location can reduce the applicability of a retrospective billing
analysis because energy impacts occur across multiple meters. This issue does not manifest with
smaller farms or farms with limited mobile irrigation lines. Given the lack of baseline dat4
Navigant attempted to assess savings from these measures using both the Site Visit Analysis
(with reduced sample size) and the Billing Analysis (with all participant sites included). To
further refine the savings from these measures will require site specific data on a large sample of
participant projects, ideally with temporary pre/post- install data monitoring.
Lack of good data on crop planting history or participants' expansion efforts introduce
uncertainty regarding kWh consumptiory due to differences in watering requirements for various
crops - both on a daily and seasonal basis.
Growers often bring acreage in and out of productiory with subsequent impacts on water use and
kWh consumption.
Lack of information on soil characteristics for various participants impeded efforts to understand
moisture retention at participant sites, and subsequent impacts on watering requirements.
Growers often install multiple measures in the same season. The resulting interactions between
installed measures further complicate the analysis beyond the approved sampling methodology.
The lack of baseline data combined with unknowns regarding the relative magnitude of the
varying measures increases uncertainty.
Suggested modifications intended to increase the certainty of Program savings are included under
Recommendations in this section.
1.3.2 RealizationRates
The 2009-2011 gross program energy savings realization rate is 2Zpercent, indicating realized savings are
substantially below reported. The system redesign measure group provided more savings than expected;
pivot/linear upgrade and equipment exchange measures provided fewer savings than expected. Table 2
provides theprogram-leoel reported and net evaluated kWh, realization rates, and the evaluation's
confidence interval.
3 During the evaluation process, it was determined that the deemed savings for irrigation measures in the Northwest
are considered out of compliance by the RTF. Given the ongoing review of these measures at the regional level, the
evaluation team did not investigate the assumptions or methodology behind the reported deemed values.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 3
4.
5.
6.
xAvrcANT
Pivot&inear Upgrade
Equipment Exdrange
System Redesign
Program Total
4,363,019
1,511,9t32
2,994,897
&859,8S
-3,076,729
0
5,067,593
1,9E/4,,8il
Table 2. Realization Rates for Idaho Irrigation Energy Savers
-a o/
0o/"
1.690/o
?f/o
-2,29'1,,289
0
3,769,446
1,479,15E
-53o/oa
0%
1267o
17o/"
45"/"
07"
20Y"
89o/"
The realization rates shown in Table 2 suggest that some of the projects are leading to increased energy
use. Research performed by others has also identified potential issues and concerns regarding water (and
thus energy) savings due to irrigation efficiency programs. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) have reported that "promotion of more
efficient irrigation technologies can unintentionally increase irrigated crop consumptive water use."s If
irrigators do not make management changes that reduce total operating hours, "ertergy consumption
often stays the same or even increases."6
The evaluation team calculated a Net-to-Gross (NTG) ratio of 0.75 for the Idaho Irrigation Energy Saver's
program for program years 2009 through 2011. The methodology used in this calculation is provided in
Sections 3 and 4.
Measure specific findings include:
" VFDs appear to be performing well; they provide greater savings than expected.
> Pivot/Linear system retrofits appear to result in increased energy use.
, As a Measure Group, the impacts from Equipment Exchange measures (Drains, Gaskets &
Nozzles) have significantly more variance than normal. Assessing the impacts from these
measures to a confidence/precision interval of 80120 will require much larger sample sizes than
typically required for this size program.
The evaluated energy savings for gaskets and drains are statistically indistinguishable
from zero. Therefore, the energy impact for these measures is assumed to be zero.7
,, Zero is a conservative estimate given that the majority of the high to low savings
range was less than zero.
The only measure from the Equipment Exchange measure group that provides
statistically valid, net positive impacts is Drains; with 90% confidence, the precision
interval for Drains at an individual measure level is +l-79%.
a See Section 4.1.4 Overview of Statistical Validity, Confidence and Precision
s Water Conseraation in Inigated Agriculture: Trends and Challenges in the Face of Emerging DernandslElB-99, Economic
Research Service, USDA, September 2012.
6 Energy Saaings Tips for lrigators (2006),IP278, rcf . Pump Up: Improaing Plant Eficiency Does Not Always Saae Energy
by Blaine Hanson (2002)
7 See Section 4.1.4 Overview of Statistical Validity, Confidence and Precision
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 4
NAVICANT
{.3.3 Cost-Effectiveness
Using PacifiCorp's model for calculating the program's benefit-cost ratios, the evaluation team calibrated
and updated cost-effectiveness models using five primary cost tests as shown in Table 3 through Table 6
below. These cost benefit tests include:
" PacifiCorp's Total Resource Cost test (PTRC),
" Total Resource Cost test (TRC),
" Utility Cost Test (UCT),
> Rate Impact Measure test (RIM), and the
" Participant Cost Test (PCT)8
As Table 3 through Table 6 show, the program is generally not cost effective.
Table 3.2009 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
98'1.,552
981,552
98],552
981.,552
981,552
730,9n
730,977
730,977
730,977
730,977
$1,581,194
$1.,587,194
$807,238
$1,474,808
$7,563,756
fi7,573,137
$1.,430,125
fiL,430,12j,
$7,430,12s
91,,287,n6
0.99
0.90
7.n
0.97
0.82
Table 4.2010 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
430,712
430,712
430,712
430,772
430,772
320,758
320,758
320,758
320,758
320,758
$804,489
$8o1,489
$637,070
$786,624
$561,830
$322,758
$293,41.6
$293,476
$293,416
9457,825
0.40
0.36
0.46
0.37
0.80
8 Tests are consistent with the California Standard Practice Manual, with the exception of the PTRC(for definition of
PTRC refer to table 19 on page ?.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 5
NAvtcANT
Table 5.2011 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
572,0m
s72,600
572,fi0
572,600
s7z@0
426,424
426,424
426,424
426,424
426,424
$687,156
$687,1.56
$490,981
$694,611.
$565,404
M17,107
$379,188
$379,788
$379,788
w9f1,324
0.61
0.55
0.n
0.55
0.88
Table 6. Combined 2009 through 2011 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
'1,,984,8il
7,984,864
7,gl34,gu
1,984,864
7,9{34,9U
1,478,758
1.,478,1.58
1,479,159
1,478,158
1,478,758
$3,072,U0
fi3,072,840
$'1.,935,229
$2,956,M3
$2,6n,99A
$2,313,W2 0.75
$2,102,729 0.68
$4702,729 7.09
$2,102,729 0.71.
62,237,155 0.83
L,4 ProcessEztaluation
The process evaluation characterizes the Irrigation Energy Savers program from the perspective of
program staff, participants, and trade allies in order to identify both existing strengths and areas for
refinement that will better serve the Idaho irrigation market in future years. It also includes consideration
of the perspective of non-participants to identify the level of program awareness and barriers to
participation.
From May through August 2012, the evaluation team surveyed or interviewed:
- 139 customers:
- 66 Irrigation Energy Savers participants and
- 73 program-eligible non-participants.
The evaluation team also conducted in-depth telephone interviews with sixtrade allies - active firms in
the Irrigation Energy Efficiency Alliance. These surveys and interviews provided data that are combined
with information from program staff interviews and project file reviews to create a comprehensive view
of the Irrigation Energy Savers program from 2009 to 2011.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 6
NAvr cANT
1.4.1 Overall Process Evaluation Findings
There is no current scheme or metric established to rank the importance of specific findings. Therefore,
the following are provided in an order based on logical progressiory not priority or importance.
Program administratorchaoe the rcsources onil capacity to implement the ptogram asplanned.Program
administrators indicated that they had the resources and capacity to implement the program as planned.
Program participants did not identify communication delays that might indicate resource or capacity
constraints. Participants and trade allies who contacted Rocky Mountain Power indicated that the
representatives were knowledgeable and timely. Trade allies indicated that they had a primary program
contact to which they could reach out and receive prompt and knowledgeable assistance; only one trade
ally indicated any communication delays.
The program aweflrs to be reoching the intenileil taryet population, The program appears to have high
reach into the irrigation customer population. Program documentation provided at the time of the
process evaluation indicates that there were 851 projects completed at 528 unique sites by 369 unique
customerse. There were SZ2irrigation customers who had not participated in any program. In additioru
three-quarters of irrigation non-participants are aware that Rocky Mountain Power offers assistance to
improve efficienry.
Participants arc mooingthrough the program as expecteil lrom the logic moilel. Both participants and
trade allies described the program operations as expected from the logic model. The program is
influencing actions of participants, particularly those who participate through system analysis and
redesign. Participants indicated that the program influenced additional similar purchases, and trade allies
indicated that program-qualifying equipment was similar to that purchased outside of the program.
Rocky Mountain Power needs to consider whether program benefits to customers meet other company
goals, or whether they will need to reconsider measure eligibility until verified deemed savings values
can be predicted and achieved.
The progratn moterials arc oaerly complex onil shoulil be simplified. Participants and trade allies noted
that there could be improvements in the application paperwork, especially for equipment exchange and
pivot and linear upgrades. Current applications for equipment exchange and pivot and linear upgrades
are three pages long and include program information and legal disclaimers in the text of application;
these program details are also included in the program print brochure and manual. Trade allies compare
these applications to the single page applications from another utility, which do not include program
detail. Trade allies noted that customers may not return applications or may not want to wait for the ally
to fill out the application. A few participants also indicated a desire for greater clarity of program
expectations; the program brochure covers all four subprograms and may be confusing.
Custonerc identifu high costs and lack of access to capital asbarrierc to furthu oction to reduce eflerg
consumption and iletnazd. Customers (47 participants and L8 non-participants) who thought there were
additional actions they could take to reduce energy consumption and demand were asked what might
e Program documentation provided to the evaluation team was updated at several points during the evaluation. Final
impacts and cost effectiveness reflect a comprehensive list of all known projects; however, the process evaluation was
completed prior to the final true-up of participant lists. Therefore, the sample framework and survey results were not
retroactively adjusted. This is acceptable because carry-over from the process evaluation into the final results is
primarily in the form of the unitless Net to Gross Ratio. As this is valid for the slightly smaller subset of projects, it is
applicable to the larger population with minimal impact on overall precision.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program PageT
NAvr cANT
prevent them from doing so. The most common potential barrier, identified by 72 percent of responding
participants and 67 percent of responding non-participants, was "high upfront costs." The next most
common potential barrier was a "lack of access to capital" with 15 percent of responding participants and
11 percent of responding non-participants indicating that was a barrier for them. Among other barriers to
further customer action to reduce energy consumption and demand were lack of time and lack of
information. The Irrigation Energy Savers program is designed to overcome high upfront costs and lack
of information. Program designs like equipment exchange overcome capital constraints for low-cost
equipmen! however, as noted in the impact section of this report, measures in the equipment exdrange
program are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. No programs are currently in place at Rocky
Mountain Power to overcome the barrier of "lack of access to capital" for projects requiring larger capital
investment. Access to capital is particularly important for retrofit projects with high upfront costs, such as
VFDs, system redesigns, and center pivot tuning projects.
The program claimeil99 percmt of its 2077 enery saaings goals. In 2009 and 2010, the program did not
have overall savings goals, but had contract targets with the third party administrator. The third party
administrator exceeded savings targets in both years based on reported savings. In20'1.1,, the program
introduced an overall energy savings goal of 2,389,790 kWh; reported savings o12,360,391. kWh are 99
percent of this goal.
7,5 Program Eaaluation Recommettdations
The evaluation team recommends that Rocky Mountain Power consider undertaking the following steps
to improve the program for future cycles. There is no current scheme or metric established to rank the
importance of specific recommendations. Therefore, the following are provided in an order based on
logical progressiory not priority or importance.
See Section 6 for details of recommendations.
The program needs modifications that will increase the likelihood of savings occurring as expected.
Some measures are successfully providing positive energy impacts, while others are not. This program
should not continue in its present form unless steps are implemented to confirm that the impacts of each
type of measure included in the program are net positive. Suggested modifications include:
L. If the program is to continue, it should be considered as being in a test period.
2. Increase program focus on Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) applications. This measure has
positive impacts and an 80122 conhdence/precision interval.
3. Modify the program such that mobile measures (i.e. non-center pivot, non-pump specific) are
temporarily delivered via a direct install participant track. The intent of this recommendation
is to allow for pre/post monitoring that can immediately assess measure savings with
interactive impacts. This change will increase the cost of implementing what would
othenrrise be very low cost measures and may limit the number of these measures
incentivized, but the benefit is that a direct install model allows for better data to be collected
in order to confirm positive measure impacts before further program moneys are spent on
measures with little, or potentially negative, impacts.
4. Establish protocols to ensure that installation dates are accurately captured.
5. Revise the program to encourage and incent only those measures which are determined to
consistently reduce energy usage/ and remove other measures from the program.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 8
NAvTcANT
Determination of which measures remain in the program should consider waiting until after
further data collection while the program is in test period status or, until additional
performance based data is available to justify measure inclusion.
The program should be considered to be in a test period and regulafo follow-up evaluations should be
conducted until the program shows reliable, cost effective savings. The evaluation team has the
following recommendations for reducing uncertainty in the next program evaluation:
1. Until the regionally deemed savings are back in compliance, treat all measures that are part
of the program as custom (as opposed to prescriptive).
2. Determine baseline energy use for implemented measures. This will necessitate primary data
collection prior to measure installation. Data collection will need to include in-situ flow rates,
power spot readings and, possibly, temporary data monitoring of pump power that can be
correlated with measured flow data. This step is particularly critical for measures that can
migrate between pumping stations, as they cannot be accurately verified after the fact.
3. Utilize additional survey tools to assess participant tendencies toward self-selecting into the
program in anticipation of increased crop watering plans for the coming year. The expanded
survey needs to also verify if total irrigation system capacity changed at the time of
participation. Additional documentation of changes in system design can then be used to
construct an improved counterfacfual baseline across all program measures.
4. Consider performing a Randomized Control Trial (further described in Section 3 of this report)
to address potential selection bias, in conjunction with the next program evaluation.
There are additional recommendations that could help reduce customer barriere and increase
participation.ll If the program continues following the test period and implementation of the actions
previously described, the Evaluation Team has the following additional, second fier recommendations:
1. Simplify the application process and provide clear guidance.
2. Approach Sprinkler Packs as a fully custom measure.
3. As opposed to the current offer to retune center pivot systems back to original design specs,
investigate options for system redesigns that promote incremental improvements in system
efficary beyond current standard practice.l2
4. Explore options to make financing available to customers for projects requiring capital
investment.
10 Afilual evaluations may be advisable during the test period but decisions regarding the most appropriate
evaluation schedule are left to the Company.
11 Short recommendations are induded here. For context and more detail, see Section 6 Progtam Evaluation
Recommendations
12 Changes of this nature may be most effective if conducted and evaluated under a market transformation model.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 9
NAvr cANT
This section provides a description of the Irrigation Energy Savers program and a discussion of the
underlying program theory and logic model, which depicts the activities, outputs and desired outcomes
of the program.
2.7 EoaluationObjectioes
The Impact and Process Evaluation of ldaho's lrrigation Energy Savers program accomplishes the
following objectives in support of Rocky Mountain Powe/s targets for energy efficiency achievements in
Idaho:
" Verifies the annual and combined 2009 through 2011 gross and net energy impacts of Rocky
Mountain Powefs Irrigation Energy Savers Program
, Reviews the effectiveness of program operations, highlighting achievements and identifying
opportunities for process improvement
" Characterizesparticipantandnon-participantmotivations
, Performs cost effectiveness calculations on evaluated results for each year evaluated and in total,
and provides feedback on input assumptions
" Provides Rocky Mountain Power findings required for regulatory reporting
The following report provides context on evaluation findings and incorporates feedback from Rocky
Mountain Power program staff.
2.2 ProgramDesription
The lrrigation Energy Savers program offers Idaho irrigation customers (rate Schedule 10) the
opportunity to increase the efficiency of their agricultural irrigation systems through implementation of
energy-efficiency measures and education. In 2011, the program sought to adrieve energy savings of
2,389,790 kWh. In 2009 and 2010 there were no overall savings goals, but the third-party administrator
had savings targets. The program offers the following incentives and services:
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 10
NAVIGANT
Pivot/Linear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
Pressure Regulators
Sprinkler Packages
Nozzles
Gaskets
Drains
VFDs
Pump Upgrades
Conversion to gravity
system
Other System Redesigns
System Analysis Service
Replace worn parts to reduce pressure atnozzle, to reduce
flow
Retune pivotAinear to more evenly distribute water
Replacing worn nozzles to improve water distribution and
reduce nozzle flow rate
Reducing water leakage to trim pump runtime
Reduces pumping flow rate during same run time for
energy savings, additional savings if run time is reduced
Optimizing part load pump performance, reducing energy use
Optimizing pump sizing and efficienry
Community level gravity pressurized system replaced canal
distribution and nearly eliminates irrigation energy use
Custom performance improvements to irrigation system
System consultations and pump tests, no savings were daimed
for this service offering. Lrtent of service offering is to identify
site specific energy savings for Systern Redesign meazures
System Redesign
System Analysis
The equipment exchange option is for customers with hand lines, wheel lines, and solid set sprinkler
systems. Participants exchange their worn nozzleq gaskets, or drains for equivalent new equipment (at
no cost to the customer) through program allied vendors. The pivot and linear system upgrade option is
available for customers with center pivot and linear move systems and provides incentives for the
replacement of existing equipment with new low pressure drains, sprinkler pressure regulators, or
sprinkler packages.
The program provides customers with technical assistance in the form of system consultations and pump
tests to help them determine the pumping efficienry of their system and to suggest efficiency
improvements. Customers who are adding capacity, changing their water source, or replacing all or part
of their system qualify for an in-depth system analysis. Customers who implement recommended
changes may qualify for incentives for site-specific projects that save energy as determined by the
program administrator.
Customers interested in participating in the program can choose from a list of participating vendors in
Rocky Mountain Power/s service territory or contact the program administrator to identify a participating
vendor. A list of participating vendors is available on the Company's web site. A third-party
administrator primarily administered the program from 2009 to20l1.
2.3 Program Changes froffi 2009 to 2071.
The method for estimating energy savings from pivot retrofits was updated mid-year in 2010. With this
update, claimed savings transitioned away from a prescriptive, per system estimate, to a semi-
customized approach that includes several system specific inputs which inform a customized version of
deemed savings. In 2010, the energy savings value for Sprinkler Pressure Regulators was also changed
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 11
Table 7. Program Incentives and Services
nAvr cANT
from a deemed value, to one that can be calculated using a quasi-custom approach that combines deemed
savings with system specific inputs.
2.4 Program Pafiicipation
Detailed program documentation from 2009 to 2011, indicate that there were 85L projects completed at
528 unique sites by 369 unique customers.
2.5 ProgramTheory andLogicMod.el
Program logic models depict the primary program activities, the outputs that are expected to result from
each activity, and the expected short-, mid- and long-term outcomes of those activities. Program actioities
depict the primary actions that are required to implement the program. This includes marketing,
participant recruitment, training, etc. The outputs depict the tangible "producf' resulting from each
primary activity. For example, marketing materials, training documents, and databases of recruited
participants can all be outputs of primary program activities. Outputs are typically identified as "things"
that can be tracked and tallied. Outcomes represent the intended results of successful deployment of the
identified activities.
Developing a logic model that clearly provides the theory of action and change is an important step in
evaluatiory allowing the evaluator and program actors to see inside the program "black box."13 Program
logic models provide a framework for an evaluation because they highlight key linkages between
program activities and expected outcomes. The process and impact evaluations focus on these linkages,
particularly those on the critical path to achieving savings goals. The evaluation identifies which linkages
in the program logic model are working properly and which linkage(s) may be weak or broken. Thus, if
the program falls short of achieving its intended short, mid, or long-term outcome(s), the source of the
shortfall can be pinpointed and remedied. Logic models are often developed as a visual tool to document
the program theory. The creation of such a model serves to develop a common understanding of program
activities and intended outcomes among third-party program implementation staff, Rocky Mountain
Power, and the evaluator. With this foundatiory the evaluation team can then make informed choices
related to the prioritization and focus of evaluation resources.
The underlying theory for the Irrigation Energy Savers Program is articulated in the logic model
provided in Figure 1. The evaluation team created the logic model based on a review of program
documentation and discussions with program management and implementers.
13 Funnell, Sue and Patricia Rogers. 2011. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic
Models. Iohn Wilev & Sons.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page12
cod
0,)boG
(!liOD
k
ok
0,)
6(/)
*@AL
or!
(Ect>boEl 'iE,!0Jo
v0lil,u8
UK
It
H260 >.'tJ6HZE,
is,E
,E
ls
;a
:€,!
t=
laiEie,E
:B
iE
,cie
;.!
;E
.t
.l!is,E
.E
iE
!E;E,g
.c
!E
i!,'E
iE
'I
E.E..EE3c2_:5
-aEO!EtE+a
=6
@
f-=E I
ti_l
E:.E*8o{i6o
ge
=o
aa
=Eo
oN
oEo
(.,
b0oF.l
Ed
b0oEPr
6
o
GI(,)xbo
otH
ao
GIbo
o
abotr
FZ
U
Z
c'd;
EE
116;!
f,
=Ed&iE$*
rI{
EE$f
If,Fi
NAvr cAN T
The Irrigation Energy Savers program is designed to overcome two customer barriers to implementing
energy efficiency projects: lack of trusted information and high upfront costs for some irrigation
equipment. The program provides some equipment at no cost provides incentives for other equipment,
and offers technical assistance. Linkages within the program logic are described here with numbers
related to those shown in the logic model figure.
L. The third-party program administrator led an effort to reach out to irrigation product dealers to
develop an Irrigation Efficienry Alliance (IEA) that covers eligible energy efficiency measures
(EEMs) -rtozzles, drains, gaskets, sprinkler pressure regulators, and sprinkler packages.
2. The IEA is armed with marketing materials, application materials, and training on the program.
3. IEA promotes the program, both equipment exchange and pivot and linear equipment upgrades,
to customers.
4. Rocky Mountain Power coordinates marketing and outreach efforts with the third-party program
administrator, and irrigation account managers.
5. Customers become aware of the program through marketing and dealers in the IEA.
6. Customers return used nozzles, gaskets, and drains from hand lines, wheel lines, and solid set
sprinkler systems to dealers. (Equipment Exchange)
7. For center pivot sprinklers and linear move sprinklers, IEA dealers help customers select
qualifying equipment to replace wom equipment. (Pivot and Linear Equipment Upgrade)
8. IEA dealers help customers submit equipment exchange applications, if exchanging equipmenf
or pivot and linear equipment upgrade applications, if upgrading wom pivot and linear
equipment.
9. The third-party program administrator receives, processes, and documents applications for
Equipment Exchange and Pivot and Linear Equipment Upgrades.
10. Equipment Exchange and Pivot and Linear Upgrade customers install the new equipment.
11. New equipment reduces demand and/or energy consumption at the irrigation site.
12. Customers may request individualized system consultation to evaluate: irrigation scheduling,
system integrity, pressure and flow, pumping lift, or opportunities for a system redesign.
13. The program administrator determines what kind of analysis to perform for the irrigation
customer. In some cases, scoping may require a visit to the customer site. Based on the
individualized consultation parameters, pump tests may be performed or detailed project
analysis may be conducted at the irrigation site.
14. Based on an irrigation site visit and individual parameters, a system consultation report and/or
an irrigation project analysis report, documenting recommendations for energy improvements is
prepared by the third-party program administrator.
15. The report recommendations are presented to the customer. Both reports include
recommendations for system improvements. An irrigation project analysis report will also
include an estimated incentive offer.
16. If customers are going forward with system redesign, they submit a signed incentive agreement.
17. Customers install recommended equipment and implement recommended strategies or controls.
18. New equipment or control strategies reduce energy consumption (and, in some cases, demand) at
the irrigation site.
19. Reduced energy consumption contributes to meeting annual program targets for Rocky
Mountain Power; note that overall program savings targets were put into place in 2011.
20. Customers see reduced energy costs and potentially reduced water costs.
21. If it is deemed necessary based on the project the program administrator verifies proper
installation of measures.
22. Yerihcation is documented and ensures that expected savings occur.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 14
NAvICANT
The program administrator informs Rocky Mountain Power of project completion and processes
incentives for equipment exchange, pivot and linear system upgrades, and system redesign.
Incentive checks are mailed to the appropriate recipient. Dealers receive equipment exchange
incentives (no cost to customer); customers receive incentives for pivot and linear system
upgrades or system redesign. Incentives reduce customer costs for the project.
Program outcomes can be evaluated by reviewing key indicators. Table 8 identifies key indicators and
data sources for Irrigation Energy Savers program outcomes noted in the logic model.
Table 8. Indicators and Data Sources for Process Evaluation
23.
24.
Short-term Outcomes
Dealers promote the program
Customers are aware of the program
Customers return worn equipment
Dealers identifu pivot and linear
system upgrades
Scope of irrigation consultation
identified
Energy saving measures, costs, and
benefits identified
Measures installed
Installation of measures verified
Participants or customers receive
incentives, and participants have
reduced first costs
Mid-ternr Outcomes
Dealers improve business for
themselves and increase program
participation
Reduce kW and/or kWh at customer
facility
Long-temr Outcomes
Achieve peak demand and energy
use reduction targets
Customers observe energy and
potentially water savings
Trade allies use program to market
to customers
Non-participant awareness
Participation with equipment
exchange
Trade allies assist customers;
participation with pivot and linear
system upgrades
Program administrator assists
customers; participation with system
consultations and redesigns
Reports include information on
measures, costs, and savings
Measures reported installed
Verification in project file
Dealers receive benefits for
equipment exchange; customers
receivebenefits for other upgrades
Trade allies seebusiness hpu"U
participation increases over time
Customers realize expected savings
Reported savings meet targets
Customers realize expected savings
Trade ally interviews; customer
interviews
Customer surveys
Customer surveys; program tracking
data
Program tracking data; customer
surveys; trade ally interviews
Program administrator interview;
program tracking data; customer
surveys
Program administrator interview;
customer surveys
Customer surveys
Project files; energy engineer
interviews
Cost-recovery in program tracling
data; trade ally interviews; customer
surveys
Program tra&ing data; trade ally
interviews
Customer surveys
Program tracking data
Customer surveys
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 1 5
NAvr cANT
The following section provides a detailed description of the evaluation methodologies used in the impact
evaluation of ldaho's Irrigation Energy Savers Program.
3.7 bttpoct Methoilology
This section summarizes the Impact Evaluation methods used to develop project- and program-level
realization rates for the Irrigation Energy Savers (IES) program. Findings provide Rocky Mountain Power
staff with the feedback they need to improve the program and to meet the objectives of Idaho's Public
Service Commission by providing an independent quantitative review of program achievements.
The goal of the impact study was to:
> Quantify the impacts of all measures and activities on annual gross energy consumption while
accounting for any interactions among technologies
> Establish post-implementation performance profiles for installed measures and activities;
" Explain discrepancies between the results of this study and the reported savings estimates.
Evaluation metrics and parameters reported through this study include:
, Gross program energy savings estimates;
> Realizations rates for projects and energy savings by measure types;
> Energy usage profiles for variable flow irrigation technologies obtained through on-site
Measurement & Verification (M&V) activities; and
> Net program savings estimates and realization rates as a function of both spillover and free
ridership.
The impact evaluation methodology is outlined as follows:
> Evaluation Approach
> Project File Review
" Sampling Framework Development
, Gross Energy & Demand Realization Rate Calculation
> Net-to-GrossEstimates
> Program Cost-Effectiveness Calculation
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 16
NAvI GANT
3.1.1 Project File Review
A review of the Irrigation Energy Savers project files allowed the evaluation team to understand the
nature of the energy savings treatment and develop on-site Measurement and Verification (M&V) plans
for projects included in the on-site M&V sample.
The project application and verification report for VFDs was more detailed than the other measures and
allowed the evaluation team to confirm input assumptions and trace a greater portion of the measure
impact calculations.
3.1.2 Sampling FrameworkDevelopment
The team adopted a Ratio Estimation approach to sample design which relies on the relatively stable
correlation between an auxiliary variable and the variable of interest. The ratio of actual savings to
program reported savings is generally seen as a reliable source for this correlation; this ratio is known as
the realization rate for gross verified savings and is also a core objective of this impact evaluation.
Further, the standard deviation of the realization rate is generally much smaller than that of the
magnitude of individual project savings. However, as seen with this program/ the Ratio Estimation
method can underestimate the sample size required if claimed savings deviate dramatically from actual
measure impacts (i.e., when the realization rate is consistently much larger or much smaller than 1.0).
It follows that the sample sizes required to achieve a specific confidence/precision threshold may be
greatly improved by estimating the realization rate instead of total energy savings. Industry standard for
confidence/precision is a minimum of 80/20; however, the evaluation was designed to achieve 90/10 at the
program level.
Per the 2004 Califomia Evaluation Framework,la sample sizes developed using the Stratified Ratio
Estimation approach comply with the following equation:
tZ * z\2t- /
ri--
1a(*'\'11s'\r? t'
Where:
n = Sample Size
Z = Z-Score for Desired Confidence Level
e = Assumed Error Ratio (0.5 Based on Prior Evaluation Studies)
rp = Desired Relative Precision
N = Population Size
Moreover, the evaluation team proportionately stratified the sample by program reported savings. Under
this approach, the sample population was divided into subgroups (strata) by claimed savings. The
evaluation team selected projects proportionately within each stratum to ensure:
1. The largest projects and contributors to program performance are evaluated, and
2. The medium and smaller projects receive fair representation in the evaluation. (Collectively,
these projects also reflect a large percentage of program level savings.)
ra TecMarket Works, The California Evaluation Framework, June 2004
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 17
NAvI CANT
Table 9 provides an overview of the impact evaluation framework representing the reported Irrigation
Energy Savers Program savings for the 2009-20LL program years. The sample framework was established
using an initial version of program documentation provided by Rocky Mountain Power that included 728
projects.
Table 9. Overview of the ldaho Irrigation Energy Savera Impact Evaluation Sampling Frame
728\s 9,969,898 8916 '].,,0n7,5U 11"/o
3.1.3 EvaluationAPProach
This evaluation applied two rigorous, industry-accepted methods and both provided strong reason to
doubt that some measures included in the program are providing savings that are either positive or
statistically significant. The Evaluation Team utilized both a Site Visit Analysis (based on data collected
during visits to participant sites) as well as a comprehensive Billing Data Analysis which included billing
data from all program participants. The Site Visit Analysis combines the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) options B & g the Billing Data Analysis complies with
IPMVP option C.
Both evaluation methods indicate a high degree of uncertainty regarding energy impacts related to
certain measures, and indicated that other measures included in the program may be causing a net
negative impact on electrical energy use.
Irrigation Energy Savers projects involve the following measures:
15 Program documentation provided to the evaluation team was updated at several points during the evaluation.
Final impacts and cost effectiveness reflect a comprehensive list of all known projects; however, the evaluation
sample was completed as one of the very first stepo prior to the final true-up of participant lists. As noted in the
following footnote, this has minimal impact on overall precision since the final sample size was ultimately
expanded.
15 Original sample size expanded from 64 projects when it became apparent that homogeneity of savings would be a
challenge. A total of 89 projects were reviewed via on-site data collection at 67 sites,
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 18
NAvtcANT
Drains
Gaskets
Nozzles
Pressure Regulator
Sprinkler Package
39
278
127
32
290
2,s74
48,739
23,909
2,546
44,593
63
7,746
303
278
4,085
0.7%"
72.9o/o
3.4o/o
3.7o/"
45.70/o
2L.6Y"
12.2%
100.006
SystemRedesigns 61 8,U9 7,912
vFD 37 9,920 1,093
Grand Total 8& 73L,Y6 8,870
* Measure Count based on units prooided in Table 7
3.7.3.1. On-Sites Inspections anil Site Visit based Analysis
Between fune and September 2012, the evaluation team visited 89 Irrigation Energy Savers project siteslT
to conduct M&V activities. The purpose of these onsite visits was to verify that incentivized energy
efficiency measures were installed and operating as reported. The evaluation team also used onsite
collected data to verify realization rates, and to calculate demand and energy savings.
The evaluation team recruited program participants for on-site project review and data collection using a
stratified-random sample. Each recruited participant was interviewed to obtain data concerning the
operation of their farm. This interview based data collection included, in part, the following data points:
" Irrigation water sources
> Irrigation acreage
> Irrigation equipment counts and technologies in use
" Irrigation hours of use, watering strategies
> Irrigation records for past years
" Field acreage, crop planting and harvesting schedules
" Field crop rotation for past four years
On-site data collection also included: a visual verification of installed IES measures, electrical spot
measurements, installation of temporary data loggers, measurement of discharge pressure and system
flow rates.
17 A single participant may have had multiple projects, potentially all connected to the same pumping station.
Therefore, this metric is determined by the number of unique project IDs that were covered.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Table 10. Inigation Energy Savers Reported Savings by Measure
Page 19
NAvr cANT
The spot-readings confirmed the operational parameters of the irrigation system while operation
continued at a normal level. These primary data collection measurements included:
, Measurement of operational parameters while system was operating
o Water flow rates and pressures
o Electrical spot measurements
o Recording of manufacturels name plate information
o Metering of electrical usage on VFDs
, Documentation of any changes to system or system operations post implementation
Site specific data (meter number, crop type, irrigated acres, etc.) was correlated to billed energy use and
normalized to estimated water use. Cumulative pumping volume is rarely monitored at agricultural
sites; therefore water use is estimated using a calculated evapotranspiration rate. The evapotranspiration
(ET) rate is a metric of estimated plant water use that factors in the crop type and weather factors such as:
solar gains, wind, temperature, humidity and precipitation. This provides a crop specific, localized
estimate of a planfs ideal water needs. This method does not account for grower decision processes or
other extemal influences, beyond weather, on field level water use.
VFDs projects included in the sample were monitored for a period of one to three months using Onset
HOBO data loggers. Logger trends are combined with spot power readings, whidr allows the VFD part-
loading to be determined. Energy impacts are then calculated using the variance between evaluated
pump full speed demand and the part load demands recorded by the data logger. The daily energy
impacts are then extrapolated using seasonal use profiles and the baseline is calibrated using the average
of the site's previous five years of annual billing data. The final result is an annual energy impact per
VFD that is normalized using motor horsepower.
3.1-.3.2 Eoaluotion Approoch for Billing Analysis
A program level billing analysis was conducted as part of the impact evaluation so as to improve overall
confidence. The sample of projects used for the Site Visit Analysis represented t2 percent of reported
savings Table 5; the Billing Data Analysis included inputs for all program participants from the
evaluation years of 2009-2077. The Site Visit Analysis incorporates a greater level of site specific details
but the Billing Data Analysis leverages a larger sample size.
Billing records showing the actual amount of electricity used by a customer over a given billing cycle are
combined with data from the program tracking database to estimate the average electricity savings
generated by program participation. The main methodological issue for the impact evaluation is to
estimate the counterfactual energy use by sites that installed irrigation measures as part of the IES program
- that is, the energy that sites would haoe used in the absence of the program measures. Using billing records to
compare energy use after measure installation to the counterfactual energy use indicates the energy
savings due to measures installed through the IES program.
Simply comparing the rate of energy use after measure installation to energy use before installation is not
sufficient for estimating savings, because other factors affecting energy use - weather, economic
conditions, crop rotations, and other variables - also affect the change in energy use over time. To the
extent that these factors are observable, they can be included in a statistical analysis in an attempt to
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 20
NAvTGANT
isolate the effects of the IES program. But despite great diligence to include such variables, there is a
strong possibility that some factors are unobservable and will not be adequately represented in the
analysis, causing the estimated impact of the measures calculated in this way to be biased.
One approach to account for these other factors is to include in the analysis a set of control sites to
provide an estimate of the counterfactual energy use of program participants. The ideal method for
determining the counterfactual is the construction of a randomized control trial (RCT) approach.In
practice, constructing an RCT control group can pose significant design and recruiting constraints. Using
an RCT approach allows the analysis to account for any possible selection bias that may be present in the
data otherwise. Selection bias may be present if there is some non-random factor that influences when a
site chooses to install measures as part of the IES program. The presence of such a bias may influence the
amount of energy used for irrigation pre- and post-installation independently of the irrigation technology
utilized. Such factors could include one or more macro- or micro-level influences, including crop prices,
site-level crop rotations, the age of existing irrigation equipment expectations of near- and medium-term
irrigation requirements, or other non-observable characteristics.
In the absence of an RCT to establish a baseline, a quasi-experimental method called the variation in
adoption (VIA) approach is appropriate. The fundamental insight of the approach is that both late
enrollees and early enrollees reveal an important commonality and similar motivations by virtue of their
similar decision to participate in the program. It follows that a good estimate of the "counterfactual"
energy consumption is available via sites already enrolled in the program - that is, the energy
consumption these sites would haoe used in the absence of the Irrigation Energy Savers program - is the
energy consumption of future enrollees not yet in the program during the same billing period. The VIA
approach is classified as a good estimate of the counterfactual because while it does help to ensure that
sites contributing to the baseline analysis demonstrate a similar level of enthusiasm for installing
irrigation measures as those sites that have already been treated, it does not completely compensate for
the selection bias that may influence when a site chooses to participate in the program and the relative
level of energy use that may result.
The version of the VIA approach utilized for this analysis uses a fairly simple, but flexiblg linear fixed
effects regression model of energy consumption by activated participants. The model casts daily
electricity consumption as a function of participant-specific fixed effects, month-specific fixed effects, and
the basket of measures installed at each participant site. Using this "two-way'' fixed effects model
estimates the impact of all time-invariant variables that are directly modeled into the equation. The
participant-specific fixed effects account for all time-invariant characteristics of a single farm, such as its
locatiory microclimate, and other aspects. The month-specific fixed effects estimate the impact of all site-
invariant temporal factors that affect all customers, such as regional weather, crop prices, economic
conditions, and seasonal conditions. Stated formally, we have the following model structure:
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 21
NAvr cA NT
where,
ADUkt
dp
bt
Dl,,
Yi
tpt
In Model 7, yi is the ultimate variable of interest as it represents the estimated daily kWh savings for each
measure installed through the IES program. The error terms, €kg, in the above model are clustered at the
site-level. If the electricity use at a specific site trends above what the baseline predicts the site would use
for a series of back-to-back months, it is likely that this "over use" of electricity relative to the baseline is
correlated rather than due to random chance. Said another way, if a site is using more electricity than
predicted in one month, there is a better than random chance that it will also use more electricity than the
baseline predicts in the following month. By clustering errors at the site level, the model allows the
calculated standard errors on the coefficient estimates to account for any serial correlation among the
amount of monthly electricity used at each participating site.
As a robusbress check, a second billing analysis model, known as a statistically-adjusted engineering
(SAE) model, was also used as an alternative method of determining measure-level savings. This model
incorporates the deemed gross savings amounts for measures installed at a given sites as an independent
variable in the regression equation. These ex ante savings values come from the program tracking
database. In the regressiory the estimated coefficient on these deemed savings values can be interpreted
as measure-level realization rates for all installed measures incented by the program. This method of
analysis can be beneficial when program participants and the level of expected savings per participant
are relatively heterogeneous. Formally, the secondary model is constructed as follows:
where,
Model2
ADIIw = ttk * br+y1s!r, + e1,,
A variable representing the deemed kWh savings in month f at site k from measureT.
This variable takes a value of 0 in months prior to measure installatiory and the deemed
savings value as represented in the program tracking database after measure
installation. For unit consistency, this value is adjusted to a daily amount.
All other terms in Model2 are defined the same as in Model 1. Just as before, the residuals are clustered
at the site level to account for any serial correlation. Once agairy y; is the variable of interest, but in this
model specification it represents the estimated realization rate on measure-level savings.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page22
Model l
ADllm = dk * br+y1Dio, + e1r,
Average daily energy use by site k in month f;
Site-specific constant (fixed effect);
Month/year specific constant for growing season (fixed effect);
A 0/1 indicator variable, taking a value of 1 if measurei is installed in month f at site k.
Evaluated coefficient on the indicator variable Dfr;
Model error term for site k in month t.
sl,,
NAvI GANT
The models described above are not appropriate analytical tools for estimating demand savings that
result from participation in the Irrigation Energy Savers program. By its nature, a program level billing
analysis uses monthly billing data to analyze customer energy use over an extended period of time. The
parameters and fixed-effects in the above models are calibrated to measure program impacts over this
longer-term time scale rather than short-term demand. In order to properly determine demand savings
using this method, customer billing data would be needed at the hourly level to differentiate levels of
demand throughout a daily period.
3.1.4 Gross Energy Realization Rate Galculation
Gross energy and demand realization rates for each project in the impact evaluation sample were
combined to form program-leoel realization rates for each program year. The evaluation team researched
the following technical issues in order to accurately determine Sross program impacts and realization
rates:
> Installation and quantity of reported measures.
" Baseline and measure performance characteristics of the measures installed, and revision of
performance variables (e.g., operating hours) as needed.
> Energy savings (kVVh) impacts of the measures installed for projects sampled. This was
accomplished by first calculating case weights for each evaluated project; the case weight is simply
the number of projects in the population in each stratum divided by the number of projects in the
final sample in the corresponding stratum.ls
The program-level realization rate was then calculated as the ratio between the product of case weights
and oerified savings estimates and the product of case weights and reported savings estimates. This is
illustrated in the equation below:
Program Rcalization Ratc; =
E[-1 Case tfeiglrt; x Vtrif ted.$arutgs Estimate i
Xl!, Cose Weighti x Reported Sovings Estimate i
3.1.5 Net-to-GrossEstimates
This section contains a brief overview of the Net-to-Gross (NTG); a more detailed explanation is provided
in the appendices.le Using self-reported responses, the evaluation team's estimation of net savings first
attempted to assess the program's influence on the participants' decision to implement an energy
efficiency project and what would have occurred absent program intervention. This estimation included
an examination of the program's influence on three key characteristics of the project: its timing, its level of
efficiency, and its scope (i.e., the size of the project). This estimate represents the amount of savings
attributed to the program that would have occurred without its intervention and is often referred to as
"free-ridership."
The team's measurement of net savings then estimated program influence on the broader market as a
result of the indirect effects of the program's activities. This estimate often referred to as "spillooer,"
18 The TecMarket Works Team, The California Evaluation Framework, Prepared for the Califomia Public Utilities
Commission and the Project Advisory Group, June 2004
1e Appendices contain a chapter dedicated to Net Savings methodology.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 23
NAVI CANT
represents the amount of savings that occurred because of the program's intervention and influence but
that is not currently claimed by the program. Spillover savings can be broken into two categories of
savings: "participant" spillover and "non-participant'' spillover. Participant spillover savings occur
directly (i.e., program participants install additional energy efficient equipment), while non-participant
spillover savings occur indirectly (i.e., market allies install additional energy efficient equipment to
customers that choose not to participate as a result of the program).
A program's net savings are adjusted by both free-ridership and spillover savings at the measure level
and then extrapolated to the program level. The net savings are the program-reported savings minus any
free-ridership savings plus any identified spillover savings, or:
Net Program Saoings = Gross Program Saaings - Free-Ridership Saoings + Spilloaer Saoings
Often, this finding is described as a "net-to-gross ratio." This ratio is the net program savings divided by
the gross program savings, or:
Net-to-Gross Ratio: Net Program Saoings I Gross Program Saoings
The findings of the NTG analysis are presented in Section 4.2.
3.1.6 ProgramCost-Effectiveness
Program and measure gtoup cost-effectiveness calculations were performed using the same cost-
effectiveness models and assumptions developed within the PacifiCorp planning department. The
evaluation team worked closely with PacifiCorp to discuss the implications of evaluated measure savings
on cost-effectiveness test results along with other additional cost-effectiveness inputs (beyond measure
incremental costs, Effective Useful Life (EUL), Remaining Useful Life (RUL), and the validity of measure
savings) reviewed as part of this exercise.20
The evaluation team ran the cost-effectiveness tests with updated evaluation findings, including:
1.. Gross Program Savings Estimates
2. Gross Program Realization Rates
3. Net-to-Gross Ratios
4. Program Costs (Administrative and Incentive)
5. Measure End-Use Load Shapes as provided by PacifiCorp
3.2 Notes on Voliility and Reliability of Impact MUV Finilings
The evaluation team identified several sources of uncertainty associated with estimating the impacts of
the Irrigation Energy Savings program. Examples of such sources include:
> Sample selection bias (participant decision and motivation)
> Physical measurement bias (e.9., meter bias, sensor placement)
m The evaluation team found the measure life input assumptions to be within range of industry standards and
similar programs offered in other jurisdictions (e.g., The Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER),
http://www.energy.ca.gov/deer/). The evaluation team expects to monitor and refine these input assumptions in future
evaluation rycles based on primary data collection activities.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page24
NAvr cANT
> Analysis assumptions (e.g., weather and microclimates that differ from conditions reported at the
weather statiory farmer behavior )
The evaluation team remained cognizant of these issues throughout the evaluation process and adopted
methods to reduce the uncertainty arising from these sources, thereby improving the validity and
reliability of study findings. Key uncertain{z sources and mitigation strategies are discussed further
below.
3.2.1 Reducing Uncertainty from Sample Selection Bias
The problem that selection bias creates for program evaluation is recognized by evaluators. Although
projects were chosen in the impact evaluation sample according to prescribed protocols, bias may have
been introduced if the selected projects did not choose to participate in the evaluation effort. In an effort
to minimize non-response bias, the evaluation team established and implemented the following
recruitment protocols:
> Notified participants as early as possible in the evaluation process.
> Accurately characterized M&V activities and the duration of the evaluation process.
> Expanded analysis to include entire participant population.
The intent of these protocols was to ensure that the impact of sample bias is mitigated to the degree
possible and that the sample accurately reflects the participant population.
3.2.2 Reducing Uncertainty of Physical iieasurement Error
There is inevitably some error associated with all physical measurement. For the impact evaluation of the
Irrigation Energy Savers program, electrical spot readings were collected using a Fluke Power meter.
These measurements were repeated across each input phase to allow for multiple measurements per site.
In rare situations a power measurement seemed out of the expected range/ in these situations another
measurement was taken. Systems operating with a high-leg were measured using a three-phase power
reading.
HOBO logger data files were manually reviewed to ensure data consistency and reasonableness.
Flow readings were collected with a highly sensitive ultrasonic flow meter that was recently calibrated.
3.2.3 Reducing Uncertainty of Site Visit Analysis Error
There are several opportunities for biases in Site Visit Analyses that may compound the error and
uncertainty of eoaluated savings estimates. The evaluation team adopted the following protocols to
minimize uncertainty from engineering analysis error in this study:
,, All project analysis findings were peer reviewed to ensure that consistent methods and
assumptions were used throughout the impact evaluation.
, The evaluation team developed data collection protocols that yielded appropriate inputs into the
analysis models and reviewed all field observations with the evaluation team. Collectively, this
served to reduce potential modeling error in this study.
3.3 ProcessMethodology
This section describes the methodology used to complete the process evaluation. First the section
describes a highJevel overview of the steps taken to collect and analyze the data for this evaluation. This
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 25
NAvr cANT
is followed by a list of the research questions that guided the evaluation. Next, the section provides a
detailed description of the data collection activities, and concludes by describing the methods used to
analyze the process data.
3.3.1 Overview of steps in the process evaluation
To meet the objectives of this evaluatiory the evaluation team undertook the following activities:
Procesg Evaluation Research Question Development. Key evaluation questions were established
from the development of the 20{u.l_ - 20LL evaluation plan with Rocky Mountain Power staff.
Program Documentation Review. The evaluation team reviewed program documentatiory
including regulatory filings, brochures, application forms, and the program website.
Logic Model Development. The evaluation team worked with program staff to define a logic
model for the program that describes the intended program design activities, outputs, and
outcomes.
Process Data Collection Activities. The evaluation team collected primary data through
interviews with program staff and vendors working with the program, as well as telephone
surveys with participating customers and with non-participating customers.
Process Data Analysis and Synthesis. The effectiveness of the program processes was assessed
by analyzing program tracking data, in-depth interview data, non-participant survey dat4 and
participant survey data.
3.3.2 Process Evaluation Research Questions
Discussions with program staff and a review of the program theory and logic identified six overarching
research questions to guide the process evaluation.
L. What are the program goals, concept, and design? Are they based on sound theory and practice,
and, if not where are the gaps?
Do program managers and administrators have the resources and capacity to implement the
program as planned, and if not, what is needed?
Is the program being delivered as planned and described in the program logic model, and if not
how and why? Program outcomes and key indicators are identified in Table 8.
Is the program reaching the intended target populatiory and if not why? Specifically, are eligible
customers aware of the program, how are they becoming aware, and what is the program's
influence on their actions?
What barriers are preventing customers from taking actions to reduce energy consumption and
demand and which jeopardize program cost-effectiveness?
Are participants achieving desired outcomes, and if not, how and why?
These questions were explored through a mixed-methods approach. Table 11. shows the overarching
research questions and associated data collection activities. Data collection activities were analyzed to
identify findings, which were then used to Eulswer the overarching research questions.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
Page 26
NAvTcANT
Program Documentation Review
Program StaffInterviews
Participant Surveys
Non Participant Suweys
Trade Ally Interviews
3.3.3 ProgramDocumentationReview
The evaluation team reviewed program marketing materials, program manuals, training and
communication manuals, annual reports, previous evaluations, and project tracking data. This archival
data review identified how the program is marketed, how trade allies are supported, and how the
process for enrollment, administratiory and tracking works.
3.3.4 Logic Model Development
Based on the program documentation review and interviews with program administrators, the
evaluation team developed a draft logic model. The program logic explains how the program is designed
to overcome the barriers that the utility is targeting. Logic models illustrate the flow of activities that
create needed behavioral outputs, which in turn achieve desired outcomes over the course of the
program. Activities are actions taken by the program administrators or contractors, as part of the
program, such as: reviewing applications, developing and presenting reports to customers, or verifying
installations. Outputs are measurable or verifiable tasks that result directly from the program activities.
Outcomes can be short, medium, or long-term, and they are the result of the activities and outputs. The
logic model was reviewed with program administrative staff and revised with program staff input. The
Iogic model is included in this report as Figure 1, in Section 2.5.
3.3.5 Process Data Gollection Activities
The process data collection activities are described in this section. Program staff interviews were used to
support development of the program overview and logic model. Findings from the other three data
collection activities are presented in the findings section and then synthesized to draw overall
conclusions and recommendations for the program.
3.3.5.1. Program Management and Administratioe Staff Intentiews
The evaluation team interviewed a program manager and the third-party program administrators. These
interviews were used in the development of the program logic model. The objectives of interviews with
key program staff were to:
" Understand the design and goals of the program;
" Understand any program changes that were implemented going into the 2009-201.1. cycle, and
any changes that occurred during this cycle;
" Identify program strengths from the program staffperspective;
" Identify program weaknesses and opportunities for improvement from the program staff
perspective; and> Identify other actionable ideas the program staff hoped to gain from the evaluation.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Table 11. Data Sources to Answer Research Questions
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
Page27
NAvr cANT
3.3.5,2 Participant Sunteys
Participants are irrigation class customers who completed an Irrigation Energy Savers project between
2009 and 2011. Surveys with participants specifically addressed the following questions in support of
addressing the process evaluation research questions:
, How do customers come to participate in the program?
, How satisfied are customers overall with the program, including application materials,
inspections, and the incentive?
> What is the extent of program influence on customer actions, including free-ridership and
spillover?
> What barriers are customers facing that prevent increasing energy efficiency?
> What kinds of commercial and industrial customers are participating?
The evaluation team defined the unit of analysis for Irrigation Energy Savers as a project at a site. Projects
were sorted by subprogram in which the customer participated, from the subprogram with the fewest
participants (system redesign) to the subprogram with the most participants (equipment exchange). For
each site, the evaluation team focused the participant survey based on this hierarchy. For example, if a
participant completed a system redesign, purchased pivot and linear upgrades, and exchanged
equipment with the program/ that participant would be asked about system redesign; participants were
asked about equipment exchange if that was the only way that their site participated. There were 851
completed projects at528 sites during program years2009-2011. tn May and June of 2012, the evaluation
team surveyed 66 participants. At 90 percent confidence, this represents a precision of +l- 9.8 percent.
3.3,5.3 Non-participant Surutys
Non-participants are irrigation customers on rate schedule 10 who did not participate in any Rocky
Mountain Power demand side management program during the2009-2011 program years. Non-
participant surveys targeted non-residential portfolio level considerations through the following
questions:
, Are non-participating customers aware of the programs?
" Why are they not participating (if they are aware of the programs)?
> What energy efficient projects are non-participants installing (outside the programs)?
> What barriers are customers facing that prevent increasing energy efficiency?
There were 4,41,3 non-participating irrigation customers in Idaho.21 In May of 2012, the evaluation team
surveyed 73 of these customers, and all 73 were eligible for this program. At 90 percent confidencg this
represents a precision of +l-9.6 percent.
3.3.5,4 Traile Ally Interuiews
Trade allies are vendors, contractors, or distributors who have signed a participation agreement with
Rocky Mountain Power to become part of the IEA. The evaluation team defined active trade allies as
those in the IEA who had completed at least one Irrigation Energy Savers project between 2009 and2077.
Interviews with active trade allies specifically addressed the following questions in support of addressing
process evaluation research questions:
21 The count of non-participating customers - precision is based on total counts of irrigation class customers, provided
by the Company, minus program participants. The non-participant sample was drawn from a data set of contact
information for a subset of non-participating customers, also provided by the Company.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 28
NAvI CANT
>
))
)
How are trade allies becoming aware of the program?
How well does the trade ally participation agreement meet their needs?
How are program operations communicated to trade allies? How is training provided? Is this
communication and training effective (do they understand the program)?
How satisfied are trade allies with their role in the program? What would they do to improve it?
Do trade allies who participate see value to their business? Can they describe the effect on their
operations?
What kind of energy efficient sales are they seeing outside of the program (spillover)?
The evaluation team identified active trade allies using information from the program tracking database,
program staff interviews, and participant surveys. Senior evaluation team staff who are knowledgeable
about the program and appropriate technologies, interviewed six out of 11 active trade allies in fune and
July of 2012.22
3.3.6 Process Data Analysis and Synthesis
The process data collection activities included both quantitative and qualitative data. The evaluation team
used statistical software, specifically SPSSTM (formerly Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)
to analyze the survey responses from participants and non-participants. Interview responses from trade
allies were analyzed directly as textual data. In both cases, the evaluation team reviewed data for missing
or erroneous entries. Analysis included recoding data in some instances to disaggregate "other"
responses or to combine similar responses into one category. Where appropriate, the evaluation team
tabulated frequencies of responses. After data from each data collection activity were analyzed
individually for findings, the evaluation team identified common findings to synthesize the process
findings across data collection activities.
2 The evaluation team offered a $50 gift card as an incentive to complete the interview.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
))
>
Page 29
NAvr cA NT
This section summarizes the Impact Evaluation findings for each project included in the 2009-2011
evaluation sampling framework. The Project-level savings estimates informed the overall Program-level
realization rates for energy savings. These findings provide Rocky Mountain Power staff with the
feedback they need to improve the program and to meet the objectives of the Idaho Public Service
Commission by providing an independent quantitative review of program adrievements.
This section summarizes the two methods of Impact Evaluation findings. First is the summary of the Site
Visit Analysis findings for each project included in the 2009-2011 evaluation sampling framework. A
summary of the measure level Billing Data Analysis is provided second.
Due to this measure's sensitivity to environmental and operational factors, the result's precision levels are
outside the normal range of 10 to 20 percent. Therefore, this program is unique in that a combination of
both the Project-Level Site Visit Analysis and the Measure-level Billing Analysis are blended into the
Eoaluated program-level savings. The final savings values are selected based on whichever of the two
analysis methods provided the best statistical precision for a given measure. These final, evaluated results
are outlined in Section 4.1.3.
The Evaluated findings provide Rocky Mountain Power staff with the feedback they need to improve the
program and to meet the objectives of the Idaho Public Service Commission by providing an independent
quantitative review of progtam achievements.
4,7 Analysis Gross kWh Saoings
This evaluation applied two rigorous, industry-accepted methods. The Evaluation Team utilized both a
Site Visit Analysis (based on data collected during actual participant site visits) as well as a more
comprehensive Billing Data Analysis which included billing data from all program participants. The Site
Visit Analysis combines IPMVP options B & C; the Billing Data Analysis complies with IPMVP option C.
Bofh methods indicated a high degree of uncertainty regarding program energy savings.
4.1.1 Results from the Site Visit Analysis
Of the projects that participated in the 2009-2011 program years/ 58 projects (representing 1L.5 percent of
reported savings) were included in on-site verification activities.
The following table presents energy impacts and realization rates by measure group. These results are
based on the Site Visit Analysis and provide both realization rate and analysis precision interval.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 30
NAvTcANT
Pivot/Linear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
System Redesign
Program Total
4,363,079
7,571.,982
2,994,89/
g,g6g,ggg
457o
0v,
257o
33OYo
3,076,729
0
3,579,0&
502,334
-77y"
0Y"
12V/"
6"/o
Evaluated realization rates are provided at the Measure-level and are outlined in Section 4.1.3.
4.1.2 Results from the Billing Data Analysis
In total, billing and measure installation data was available for 527 sites that participated in the IES
Program. The billing data provided for the analysis spanned the period from ]anuary 2008 until
September of 2012 and included the k\ /h charged to each site and meter during each billing cycle.
According to the program tracking database, the earliest measure was installed in April of 2009, while the
latest measures were installed in December of 2011.. This means that for all program participants in the
model for which there is uninterrupted billing data, the analysis contains at lenst one full growing season
of billing data prior to measure installation and almost an entire growing season of data after measure
installation.
As part of the billing analysis, months during which sites used little or no electricity for irrigation were
deleted from the data pool. The analysis showed that over the 57 month period for which billing data was
available, the robustness of the model could be improved by eliminating billing periods from November
through April during which energy use for irrigation was almost unanimously zero. Figure 2 below
shows the average daily kWh use across all sites by calendar month according to the billing data.
Figure 2. Average Daily kWh by Billing Month
2000
1800
>. 1600o6 1400t rzoo-c3 roooJ
$ 800ob ooo
200
0
Source: Evaluation team analysis
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 31
Table 12. Gross Energy Savings as Detennined by the Site Visit Analysis
NAVICANT
Pivot/Linear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
System Redesign
Program Total
The billing data provided to the evaluation team was cleaned in other ways to prepare it for inclusion in
the billing analysis. Transition months were noted in the dataset, which flagged billing cycles that
spanned the period of time during which a measure was installed at a particular site according to the
tracking database. These billing cycles were removed from the analysis because they contain a mix of pre-
and post-installation data that cannot be properly separated in the analysis. As Figure 3 shows, the
majority of measure installations happen during the growing seasory which further necessitates the
removal of these months from the analysis. Additionall/, it is possible that measure installation during
the growing season may delay the time it takes for a farmer to fully adjust their farming and irrigation
practices to the newly installed measures.
Figure 3. Number of Measure Installations by Month
250
t^tr
.9E zoo
t!
6tr; 1s0
=6a!
$ roo
o
.g so
E
Jz
0
Source: Program tracking database and evaluation team analysis
Additionally, the amount of electricity used at a site over the course of a billing cycle was converted to an
average daily electricity use to compensate for variations in the length of billing cycles across months and
across sites. For this reason, the first billing cycle for each site was removed from the analysis because the
number of days in the cycle could not be confirmed. Similarly, annual deemed savings values were
converted to daily savings rates based on the number of days in the irrigation season as described above.
The results of the Billing Data Analysis using annual energy use as the variable of interest (Model 1) are
presented in Table 13 below.
4,363,079
7,511,982
2,994,897
8,869,899
57%
0Y"
44Vo
9lo/"
-6,274377
0
2,149,363
-4063,008
-742"/"
07"
72"/"
-46Yo
Table 13. Estimated Measure Group Savings from Billing Analysis
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 32
NAvr GANT
In total, the billing analysis found statistical significant impacts for five out of the ten groups of measures,
and seven out of ten measure groups when measured deemed savings were incorporated into a
statistically-adjusted engineering (SAE) regression model. Most significantly, both analysis models
estimate electricity savings for drains, sites associated with gravity system conversiory and other system
redesigns in erxcess of 80 percent confidence, often higher. Sprinkler packages and gaskets also produced
results that were consistently significant. However, the billing analysis revealed a tendency for the
installation of new sprinklers and gaskets to produce an increase in average electricity use per site. This
increase in electricity usage may be due to a selection bias as previously discussed or some other
confounding factor, such as a high coincidence of installation between two or more measure types that
makes it more difficult to distinguish impacts from one measure over the other (discussed below).
There are several explanations for why the billing analysis was unable to achieve statistically significant
results for all measure groups. The first reason is the lack of a distinct control group to use as a
mechanism for constructing an energy baseline that is comparable in aggregate to the treatment sites in
all ways except for measure installation. \A/hen a randomized control trial (RCT) is not possible, the
variation in adoption (VIA) approach used in this analysis can be a reasonable substitute for constructing
a baseline. However, this approach works only to the extent that late adopters are comparable to early
adopters in all ways except for the time of measure installation. With the inherent heterogeneity among
customers in the agricultural sector, this assumption of comparability is less likely to hold. Differences
could also be compounded by any selection bias present in the data that influences the time during which
a farmer chooses to get measures installed. This may further make program participants less comparable
from one year to the next. Future billing analyses would likely benefit from the construction of a separate
control group, perhaps using matched control sites, as a baseline for calculating measure savings.
The relatively small number of installations of some measure types is also a factor contributing to the
levels of significance on estimated savings and realization rates. Figure 4 below shows the number of
measures installed over the three year program period. Measures that tended to yield less significant
energy savings estimates were often those with the lowest installation counts (pressure regulators, pump
upgrades, VFD and pump upgrades). Though a large number of measure installations is not necessary to
achieve significant impact results (as evidenced by the results for sites participating in gravity system
conversion or other system redesigns), more occurrences of installation does decrease the magnitude of
impacts required to achieve statistically significant results and helps to offset the negative influence of
site heterogeneity and noise in the data that can lead to insignificant results.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 33
NAVI CA N T
Figure 4. Numberof Sitee with Measures Installed
Nozzles
Gaskets
Drains
Sprinkler Packages
Pressure Regulators
Gravity System Conversion
VFD
Pump Upgrade
VFD and Pump Upgrade
Other System Redesign
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of Sites with Measure lnstallation
Source: Program Tracking Database and IES System redesign breakout.xlsx
A billing analysis relies upon variation in the data to parse out the influence of each independent variable
on the variable of interes! program savings. When two measures are frequently installed in combination
with each other, it can become more difficult for the model to differentiate between the impact of one
measure and the impact of the other. This was most true for the measure pair of.nozzles and gaskets,
which had correlation of installation of 0.53. In addition to a possible selection bias, this may be an
explanation for the negative savings estimated for gasket installations.
Additional pieces of data related to irrigation practices and energy usage would also benefit any future
billing analysis performed for the IES Program. The fixed-effect model used in the billing analysis
estimates the impact of variables that are not modeled in the equation but impact energy usage. The site-
specific fixed-effect should take account of the characteristics of specific farms and microclimates,
whereas the month-specific fixed-effects should account for monthly/seasonal weather conditions and
economic conditions across all farms. An effort was made early on in our analysis to compare the use of
fixed effects for modeling weather versus modeling weather directly. There was no appreciable
difference in our test results and using the fixed effects increased the models efficiency and degrees of
freedom, so the analysis used that approach.
The lack of crop data in the analysis is a greater concern. Crop plantings are neither time-invariant nor
site-invariant, so they are not accounted for by the fixed-effects. An attempt was made to incorporate
such data into this billing analysis, but crop data was only available for a small fraction of the farms in the
billing analysis and only for a subset of the years being analyzed. Thus, it was not possible to account for
this in the model. Since crop data was only available for a small fraction of the farms in the billing
analysis and only for a portion of the years being analyzed the baseline year of 2008 was not present.
Since one of the most significant factors influencing the amount of irrigation performed on a farm is the
crop that is being grown, data representing the crops grown at each site in each year of the billing
analysis would likely increase the robustness of the model and its impact results. Other data points that
may be of value include soil moisture levels or tracking data showing farmer participation in the IES
program prior to the years being analyzed. It is possible that the inclusion of these or other pieces of data
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 34
NAVICANT
would help to achieve more statistically significant impact results even without a corresponding increase
in the number of participating sites.
4.1.3 Merger of Results from Two Analysis Methods into Final Evaluated Savings
The final evaluated savings and cost effectiveness are determined using the measure level results with the
best precision. Table L4 provides the measure level precision obtained by both the Billing Analysis and
Site Visit Analysis.
In some instances, the site-visit analysis results were deemed particularly unreliable, as noted by "--" in
Table 14. This assessment was made using a series of quality control filters that removed projects based
on logical constrains (e.9. a filter is used to remove any project that impacted less than 15 percent of the
total irrigated acreage on a given meter from the sample.)
If the Quality Control (QC) process added to the Site-Visit Analysis results in too few of a given measure
to produce results, the evaluated savings for that measure is based on the billing analysis. The analysis
method used for each measure and associated precision are specified in Table 14.
Table 14. Measure Level Precision for Billing Analysis and Site Visit Analysis
Per Drain
Per Gasket
Per Nozzle
Sprinkler Package
VFD
Pump
Gravity Project
Other System Redesigns
Pressure Regulator
79Y"
1560/"
1.98%
57"/"
345%
136!"
66o/o
4Al"
279y"
97o/o
45o/"
28%
25Y"
2760/o
1.53%
Billing Analysis
Site Visit Analysis
Billing Analysis
Site Visit Analysis
Site Visit Analysis
Billing Analysis
Site Visit Analysis
Billing Analysis
Site Visit Analysis
Note, nozzle and gasket measures were often installed as part of a single project.
4.1.4 Overview of Statistical Validity, Confidence and Precision
When the evaluation team reviewed the program level results, it was noted that the realization rates for
the IES projects had significantly more variation than found in a typical program evaluation. During the
evaluation it became clear that the precision of the Site Visit Analysis might not achieve the required
confidence/precision intervals of 80120, thus the decision was made to include ALL sites in the evaluation
through a Billing Analysis approach. The measure level results were then assessed using a combination
of approaches that leveraged the benefits of the detail oriented Site Visit Analysis and the ability to
include the largest possible sample size via a Billing Analysis approach. This two-prong approach to
analysis complicates the determination of final precision intervals. Therefore, to assess precision bounds
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 35
NAvTGANT
at the measure level, the measure group level, and the program level, the team performed a Monte Carlo
simulation. Precision at the measure level and the measure group level are provided as appropriate in
other sections of this report; however, in summary, statistical review of the program level results found
that with 90% confidence, these results are determined to have an89o/o precision interval.23
The system redesigns measures are the only projects that pass the statistical validity test, exceeding the
minimum standard of 80120 with 80% confidence that the precision of the results is within +l-17"/o of tlrre
actual impact. VFD projects and the gravity fed, community-scale system redesigns nearly pass the
industry minimum confidence /precision requirements with confidence/precision interval of 80122 and
80/20, respectively.
While the precision intervals for the remaining measure level results are not in compliance with industry
minimum guidelines, the general trends remain valid and several insights into program effectiveness and
recommendations can be drawn to aid in program refinement.
4.1.5 Evaluated Results at the Measure Group Level
The gross valuated savings by measure group are presented in Table 15. The negative realization rate for
Pivot/Linear Upgrades reflects increases in energy use after project implementation that is consistent
across the majority of these projects. Weather and crop factors are accounted for in the analysis but not
details related to participant motivation (selection bias). The precision range for these results does not
meet the objective for results at the 90/10level. However, the conclusions are statistically valid in that
they are clearly distinguishable from zero and consistent a$oss both analysis approaches.
Savings from the Equipment Exchange measure group are zero because the results appear to be negative
but the statistical precision bounds include a range that spans both positive and negative final impacts.
System Redesigns are providing consistently positive and statistically viable results. The realization rate
for the overall program is twenty-two percent (22"/")
Table 15. Evaluated Gross Energy Savings and Realization Rates (kwh)
Pivot/Linear
Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
System Redesigns
Program Total
4,363,019
1.,51.1,982
2,gg4,gg/
8,869,898
45o/o
07"
27V"
89o/"
-3,076,72y
0
5,057,5y3
7,984,8@
-77o/o
0Y"
l6W"
22o/o
ts With 80% confidence, the program level precision is 690/o.
2a See Section 4.1.5 Evaluated Results at the Measure Group Level
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 36
NAvI CANT
In
Table 15, it is shown that System Redesigns are reliably achieving greater savings than expected.
However, proiects focused on Pivot and Linear upgrades are not providing statistically significant
savings. Although counter intuitive, the post-retrofit increase in energy use suggested by
Table 15 is supported by secondary research. The USDA2S states "Improved technology alone may not be
enough. Producer adoption of more efficient irrigation technology may increase agricultural water
consumption in several ways.
1. More efficient irrigation systems allow the producer to reduce the quantity of water applied
to a field, often through improved uniformity of field-water distribution and timing of water
applications to meet crop growth-stage requirements. These improvements may also result in
higher crop yields, which generally increase crop consumptive water use.
2. In the absence of defined "conserved" water rights, water savings from irrigation efficiency
improvements on one field may be applied to additional crop acreage under irrigation.
Unless restricted, "water spreading" over an expanded acreage base generally increases
aggregate agricultural water consumption.
3. Improved irrigation technologies can alter the economics of irrigation enough to entice
producers to adjust traditional cropping patterns, potentially shifting to more water-intensive
irrigated oops. In the High Plains, for example, higher yields and reduced irrigation
pumping costs with improved irrigation efficiency have prompted a shift from irrigated
wheat and sorghum production to increased acreage in irrigated corn. These types of
cropping pattern adjustments may increase aggregate crop consumptive water use".
4.2 Net kWh Saaings
The evaluation team calculated an average Net-to-Gross (NTG) ratio for the Irrigation Energy Savers
program across the evaluated period, for program years 2009 through 2011. The program weighted NTG
ratio was calculated by weighting a sample of projectJevel NTGRs by their claimed energy savings
values. The methodology used in this calculation is provided in detail in Section 3.1.5, Net-to-Gross
Estimates. The project level NTGRS are presented in the appendix.
Table 16lists the weighted Net-to-gross ratios by measure group.
Table 16. Idaho Irrigation Energy Savers Weighted Measure Group Net-to-Gross Ratios
Redesign
Pivot/Linear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
Program l{eigfrted
0.93
0.57
0.57
0.75
2s Water Consentation in Irrigated Agiculture: Trenils and Challenges in the Face of Emerging Demands/ElB-99, Economic
Research Service, USDA9 September 2012.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 37
NAvICANT
Pivot/Linear
Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
System Redesigns
Program Total
4,%3,019
'1,,511,982
2,994,897
g,g6g,ggg
-2,297,299
0
9,769,M6
7,478,758
-53Yo
0Y"
126%
77o/o
47Yo
0Y"
21o/o
92o/o
The realization rates shown above reflect the difference between savings reported at the time of
installation and evaluated savings 1-3 years after project completion. However, customers often modified
their operating profiles during this time interval and, therefore, impacts statistically different from zero
cannot always be attributed to program influence. For example, the agricultural sector is sensitive to
economic changes that influence food prices. Similarly, irrigation equipment functions in an environment
where catastrophic failure is part of the routine. Also, "on the fly'' operational changes affect the
reliability of both the baseline and in-situ energy use.
Throughout the impact evaluatiory the evaluation team remained cognizant of these factors which could
influence project-level savings. And though the economic downturn did not appear to significantly
influence the projects in the impact evaluation sample, the evaluation team emphasizes that program
savings are continuously evolving due to a dynamic business climate and that the aforementioned
realization rates are a snapshot of program performance in time.
4.3 Cost Effectioeness Calibration and Analysis
The cost-effectiveness of utility-funded programs in the state are typically analyzed using cost-
effectiveness tests prescribed by the Commission.26 For the purposes of this evaluatiory Rocky Mountain
Power specifically required the following cost-effectiveness tests:
" PacifiCorp Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
" Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
" Utility Cost Test (UCT)
> Ratepayer Impact (RIM)
" Participant Cost Test (PCT)
The evaluation team worked with PacifiCorp to understand the PTRC and construct a tool that calculates
the PTRC at measure, program and portfolio level. Table 18 presents descriptions of generally accepted
cost-effectiveness tests.
26 The California Standard Practice Manual is an industry accepted manual; it identifies the cost and benefit
components and cost-effectiveness calculation procedures from five major perspectives: Participant, Ratepayer
Impact Measure (RIM) and Total Resource Cost (TRC). Definitions and methodologies of these cost-effectiveness
tests can be found at httn://www.enersv.ca.sov/sreenbuildine/documents/backeround/07-
T CPUC STANDARD PRACTICE MANUAL.PDF.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 38
Table 17. Evaluated Net Energy Savings and Realization Rates (kwh)
NAvICANT
Participant cost test
Utility cost test
Ratepayer impact
measurex
PCT
UCT
RIM
Will the participants benefit over the
measure life?
Will utility revenue requirements
increase?
Will utility rates increase?
Total resource cost TRC
test
PacifiCorp Total PTRC
Resource Cost Test
Comparison of costs and benefits of
the customer installing the measure
Comparison of program
administrator costs to supply-side
resource co6ts
Comparison of program
administrator costs and utility bill
reductions to supply side resource
costs
Will the total cocts of energy in the Comparison of program
utility service territory decrease? administrator and customer cosb to
utility resource savings
Will the total costs of energy in the Comparison of program
utility service territory decrease when administrator and customer costs to
a proxy for benefits of conservation utility resource savings including
resources is included? 1"0% benefits adder.
The evaluation team spent considerable time initializing and validating the cost-effectiveness model used
for this evaluation. This model was calibrated by using prior inputs and outputs from the previous
evaluation cycle to ensure that similar inputs yielded similar outputs. The evaluation team worked
through a range of input assumptions pertaining to avoided cost data formatq financial assumptions
regarding discount and escalation rates, participant costs and benefits, and other input parameters.
Cost-effectiveness inputs were provided by PacifiCorp staff and include program cost inputs, program
savings by measure, and measure life. Table 19 provides an overview of cost-effectiveness input values
used by the evaluation team in the cost-effectiveness analysis:
27 "Understanding Cost-effectiaeness of Energy efficiency Programs: Best Practices, Technical Methoils, and Emerging Issues for
Policy - Makers" NAPEE, November 2008. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/cost-effectiveness.pdf
B The RIM test is a measure of the difference between the change in total revenues paid to a utility and the change in
total costs to a utitity resulting from an energy efficienry program. If retail rates are higher than marginal costs, few
programs that significantly reduce energy consumption will pass this test.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 39
Table 18. Descriptions of Cost-Effectiveness Tests2T
NAvtcANr
hnflation Rate 7.907o 19Wo
Industrial Line loss 9.MVo
Industrial Retail Rate
The following tables illustrate the Costs, Benefits and BenefiUCost Ratio for the cost-effectiveness tests
used in this evaluation. Impacts were evaluated for2ffi,20l0,20ll, and for combined 2009-2011 over
four different scenarios: Reported, Evaluated, High and Low scenarios.
Table 20 through Table 23 outline the Evaluated scenario. The tables for the other three scenarios are
induded in the report Appendix.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Powe/s Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Table 19. CosbEffectiveness Evduafion Input Vduea
Discount Rate
Page 40
+
o)o)(oo-
6kqp
l-
oL0)
6(n
qbD
tt.9 tr.r
6!
66>hD
OE
9,I JD
!, 0J
JU&
UL!u (6&r
Hzbo >,'iJ6Hz&
<{N6lO\cO6 \O CA 6t C{).i-icri-i'j
N\O\O\OO\r<OOO<r6tsHHN<fNF.'fi6<rNNN\O6\o\o\oo
!fHFiiF{{,>{DtA(A4
\0\oNoT 3 EE RE: E. E.H. E:d4i{e {+ (A (D
\o \o \o \o \oNN6INNooooot:.riN'Dir-.F\NNl'.NNNNNN
F{HFiiFr
N6INNN€co00ao6F{HFrHFi\o \o \o \o \o6006006(! cn (o co Cr)61 6t 6l e.t e.l
ngl
fr R XA Eoo=uriY Y HEUE i tEgB ff ,q 3.8dn &, Y E.S;E EgS,iEN€u €e.5 d f,E
cboo6Jt0)*
E0.,
.Ax(n
ro<ioo\N+ " "$ +
O,FOINco00coN\O c}\ O\ 6\ O\-i 6 d6 tjNv$YF61616l6lts@r*{Arfta
61 (\l \o \tr\ \ co.: rtooc=c]f)ro6l:ll<{{Fr#6
OO()OOro ro lo ro 1.)oooood 6 66 6ooooo
F{FFiAFilrlr
oooooco co (f) co c.)\o \o \o \o \o.{I++<f<fooooo
Fr S Fi H Htrtrt
# g 8e"I I P.5,9UUe*LI s .qf,qH = '.. + \.,') ) 6 9riE^E p F[
EfEgggsu
o,,EC,kborDk(6(!)
tr
Eo
oi
OOoHo606\ci ci ci ci
CA6looooN+h+ee6'(o{A
\O\ONNNOOFF(YICO'6€D\r..Fi+<re.tNN66<r(,+t4{4(4 {A
ooo
ooo
.E .E ceF F }i AVa^I I e5fUU+*L8 g Jg,E5 5 U rY
E^ p ,: F[
sH 39f,3Filfre F'-i;J Y' A1 -
0,boa(d
frxE]
d9EA
tt
Td
E(}
oo
6&
ooU
OJcq,
l0
coo
cl
6
H
cooN
dNoo
GIF
FZ
L)
Z
C!$
o)o)(Eo-
F(!k
Eo
k
oH
ad(nx*bo
TCor!
6F
(o6,t .9p
oE
Q)au\.!ro
s8E,,
tra
Aabo >,'al46Hzd,
NN6IF\O\@rroC)
b\ tO lO 1O \O-r c.l (\1 6l Oi-i#i.HO.ridddr\.N6(ocOO!o<.{<lN
4eo@tE
E d HH Fg. .i !t<r c.t66hN\orfi ro. H -( ro.E E ..68 E
NNNNNI\Nt\NNCt\ O\ C O, O\o'o'ddo'(iJ (o (o ro (oNN.NNN
Nt\Tt1 NNrai 1.l !o ro ro16 ro ro ro ro
F660@O6\O\CO.C
E E '1 -F-nz6 U xE i0OOSvI-? ? EEe5 5 !E?ft ff .q &E&,; &. Y E.S
ETEggsEU
(Ek(u
o
Edtrbooko.
cr\ oO\ O\OO
FZ
U
Z
(.)+oo)(E
o_
tr(!LbooE
okI
(d(D
>\qbo
trdor!
6(6>bo
3,!Oou\.voc.ss8tc
o. ijttr
-oez,bD >.'lJ6Xz&,
rf)@\o
-id .j
\o00co€(of\6600O\\o6ao6<rCANNN(f)\OHF{HCto ro ro ro \n{J'}{a(a{44
C{)tON\O\O616IHNN6lNocooccl c.i oi t: 6:n<rNHO\slr !.n aO \O N{# (A {# {D (D
oooooO\ O\ O\ O, O\FiHtiitlcrl c.i c.t co' c.iO\ O\ O\ O\ O\oo6666
HHidNNNt'\Nco co cq (o (ooi oi oi oi oiO\O\6C,.\0\Fi d Fr i H
F{iHHFr
E t aa,,9 .9 ??*g g ,gf,qH A EEE
fBEssEss
Ioo
6o)to.)&gooxa
O\NNH\oroNcooqnq{:? IY ?
3 -3 aNt\F.\-n .{a xX XX =rs s3 €
\oo6lo\lOXNro. t'). ; \
\O C i'f FrNtrlfN{+&vrE
NNN6Ico (o co co<r !d. <r snAt At 61 6lNNNNro lr) ro rotttl
666O61r) ro ]f) ro tf)\O \O \O \O \Ooo6006cl\O \O \O \O \Oi\NNNN
ts E ,^c; ; EiEo o g etiY ? frEuH i ti9oox6im r .9 i5.E&,; &. Y E.*
ETggg3EE
0.,tdkbo*Dlr6ot{
0.
# # QBuoo=rr:? ? EEe5 5 ! EgH h .q &H&,; d. Y E.*
EB EB g E Eg
oooooodcrci
o(>o(, rEt,
HdlcoN tdi <r.o- !t -1iocqco
iili&(#ra
ooo
0)bDd
IUE(,xE]
do,)
Eq
acrlrl
N\og
tf{A
oo
6&
(,)oU
otrotaEo
GI5
cl
HooN
t.iN
0)
!GIF
FZ
U
Z
s$
(D(n(oo-
(!Eqp
L
akI(t(Dx*bo
trdor!
6!
(!6>bo
6L
OoU:V0J
"!{ ^OE.E:P6urttr
!,o
box'l .5z*rlz&.
\oNOa cf? oqooo
O\O<r coOO
oo \o \o \o ro16HF{d6lNs\nt$O6I ..,' co' cri -iAl O\ O\ O\ 1Odi6tNr\<46(A*&a
O\O=rrO0oF{N(f)no-q6.<rN\OF{o(oo\o€\oNro(Deota
CA6t6*
6coao@o1.) 1r) rr) ro !oNNNF\T\ct d dd dN616INNco co ro co cr)
N6I'INN FN i'\ t'\ N i\ct ct dd d(r) co co co cossvvv
E E ,^-F F F:ZrvF,(ataofrqd)oo=Jt;UU+;-8 I p, s.85 5 ! rYB E SE.Fd^ E : E.?
EfggggEu
(Uko
o
F
frlL@okor
FZ
L]
Z
|r)
(Dg)(E
o_
E6Lqo
k
oL
0,)
6(nx*bovodt.9 t!
(d!
6i!>ooIrl '-oL
0Jou\.!, 0Jd3.88tstr6'=
E>bo >,'=J
6oZil
CONN6\ocrroo*NHN6
rr
<TOOOH6 \ti tl $ 6
d oo' od oo' Fi:iNNNCOF\ \O \O \O 16a{#rErD{a
ll)rooN(Y)cOcOrOO\C.1 .1.Yn<,rtt rrt \o- crt N'rriGO\O6s!.+N\Oc{{,>14(A{DA
oooooR R &R Rtri oi oi oi oiOrO\O\Cd\ooooo
FliFiitf
ooooooooood 6 66 6F\NNNF\<{<1 $.$<r
HiHiH
nc?F-;]zB fi XA EOO=JEY ? .E.Egl i ;!gX H ,9 &h&,; &, Y E.S;V Eo9;EnEE E5 5 E &U
tr@
o!q,)Eq)
Ec,
6x(rl
ro \o o\c.)q5!:ts6lAOrlt
o\$..i
NC{NN\ONr)rOr)0Fc{N6lOoi oi oi oi .rit\O\CO\N(r)NN6IHt,}r#(+{#4
s R 9a S-l a -t i.i to.
c{Nsn=-n6lNH).I t\l{*rD{E3{,
\0 \o \o \o \oooooo666666t c.,t' 6l c.l 6lNNNNN\O \O \O \O \Oltttl
FidFriFi
(o co (o co d)oooooO\ O\ d\ O\ 6\ttttt
E E --i- F ;12B *o xa SOO__|)lJ? ? HEUou{F,qI : ;iYH X .q &Hil,; & Y E.+iE 195!88€u €E.5 p d5
0)t6hbor)fr(g
0.,aJ
o
o.
E = E3 -8
6\noooo(r)O {# {A {A d)-d)6
co00HH6
ct d oi oi crtro ro lf) ro (oe{Doe4
oooo
oooo
E E --F F F-'IZVt^I I g5,gUU#.li-s s J*.9H B s[Edii d : E.=
Efsgg#Es
obDa
C,frxtll
C
0,,
E&
tfE]
6o
(rlil
thoU
oto
FAEo
CI
ct
rrl
oN
NNoIctF
FZ
L'
Z
(o$oo)(!o_
F
!
Eo
E
qE0)
(Eu)
*bo
.9 El
66>oD
oLoou\.S/ 0J
s8
UE6'=&-tr,d
Hebo >\.:J
(dxz&,
F\ coo6
f\ O\F{ F\sn roa6
\O\OFF$lt)roaotsa
- Ch \O :lir:. Di d <f rri6ooChor\\o\O \O sn \O lO{A@te(AA
F\tO€f\looocici
66NtrHtOat\ d\ 6F.NCAd)co$16{, re
sl{ =n -n61 61 6l<l \tr $\l' \o \ONNN.<ll tdl <l
oooooooooo\c, \o \o \o \oe.I e.l e.I c.I .lNl'\t\NNro ro ro lo ro
tAq# # t-.l>B E HA iBooSrIi? ? EEgE X ;!!H fi .9 &H#n &, Y E.S
ErEgg$Es
(Ek0,
o
E(!libooko.
FZ
U
Z
F-t
o)cn(Eo_
6Lqo
L
aL
(g(n
>'*bo
ddor!
6!
(!id>bo
oL
qioU:9cJd3.u8Ecq'Ht&r
ez,box'aJ
GAZE,
lor(Y)NHIJ)6i..i.j
O\nN1r)
'j-i
N \rr <r sfl \nNrO(O(ON
d c.i 6i .o' r..\ONNN<r-t co. 6. €. tt(nc{NclNr,}{# {# (' {A
OONONO\O, lr)N(r)co\d)ro6lroro+coo6@O1r)\O
rrHFiNF(r,}r#r#{+6
\O \O \O \O \Osli \n <l sf <tn a -lit -lt
O\O\CO\a,\\o \o \o \o \oNNNNNrri c.i cti c.i cri
co co d) co (nO\ O\ O\ O\ O\1r)rolflrolt)
FrHFriFi\O \o \O \o \Oooooorri tri rrt ri ri
t t QBro o geE? ? EEsi x iEgE ff .q &E&,; d, Y E.*;V io I i:EaEU S5 E E EU
abo
6q)!0)&
E0)ax(,J
\o co Al =f 1l)OD\NCO(O+ + re "
rolr)u)rooNOOONNNNF..\Ott d dd c.t$NNNd)Ol\NNCO(,+g(#(t@
6t\oNc,\\O(ON<r$o\o!oco tdi 6l clcocoH\oO\\OHCh€A{& *e
N\ost{ctt6o\{#
€00@60600666NNNNNt{HFiHFio\ o\ o\ o\ o\NN6INtlc.i e.l c.t e.t c.ittttt
o\o\co\o\NNC{NNNNT\F\N6 6 \d6 dNNNNNoooooS r SP $
n*d{FSE ; gAEOO=UIi? ? frEei E ;i!H H .q &H&; il, Y E.g
"E iog;3eEU E5 5 E EU
oE
aELbo&p
traE0)
J
o
0r
OOONoooo\oooo
c)o()
c)oo
I
-l
IB I 88 F
E;
$.+\0\c)6lt\ D\ \O \O!i<l\o\oF{o.'oiN$d6tNrolo(\t6t61 6l(\H{DrAgtA<A
t # EEoI I 45flUU+;LI s .q9.8E E r -UH H ,EE.Hgn g u eit
EB EB g s Eg
ohocG€xE]
d
OJ
E&
ttIrl
(ao
CI/
(aoU
OJ
OJlatqJ
6
(!
El
ot\
bD
o
&
o\ooNEotrs
EoU
(oNoo6F
FZ
U
Z
@st
(l)o)(!o_
6
book
o
OJ
6(nx*boAT
.9 r!
6E
(!is>boI! 'r.oE
oroU:9oJE3
eaciEA6'=
E>bo >.'lJ6XZE,
CF(n-N6F{oo
co9rf)Nci
6I o.\ O\ or' iO66t6tNroONNNF{m. N' ^l .l' x.HoOO(a(f)FFGI
^l ^I r.t c.i c.t{A4r+{DO
ooo\roa$sAl$c60()NOO\
^t6itri6dNN(OrOO\OOO\oN\OGt c.i .i oi 6i{6{4ta{4{t}
600ao601t.) ro ro ro roHiFiHtfod oo' od oo' odNNNNNsvsvs
F{dF{iF{
3 3 SS 36€COOO<f =r.' <t -r,' <f66AO60cr\ d\ O\ O\ C
F{HF{iF{
# t g3r
o o =-t? ? EEeE i TEgE E SE.Fd; &, : E.*gfggggEs
c,ko
o
EGIk@ohP.
FZ
U
Z
NAvI CANT
This section describes the findings from the process evaluation data collection activities. These activities
include the Irrigation Energy Savers participant surveys, Idaho non-participant surveys, and trade ally
interviews. For each data collection activity, this report provides a description of the sample followed by
findings from that activity. At the end of this sectiory findings from these three data collection activities
are synthesized into key process findings and recommendations for the Irrigation Energy Savers program
in Idaho.
5.7 Pafiicipant Findings
In May of 2012, the evaluation team surveyed 66 participants the Idaho Irrigation Energy Savers
program. Irrigation Energy Savers includes four subprograms: System Analysis and Redesign, System
Consultation and Pump Test, Pivot and Linear Upgrade, and Equipment Exchange.
Customers could participate in as many subprograms as they wished, though each respondent was only
asked about participation in one of them to minimize respondent fatigue. The survey design prioritized
inquiring about participation in the System Analysis and Redesign subprogram. Next priority was given
to investigating participation in the System Consultation and Pump Test program. If the participant did
not partake in either of these but conducted a Pivot and Linear Upgrade, the questions were tailored to
survey this experience. Finally, if participants only conducted an Equipment Exchangg the survey asked
about this experience instead.
No participants in the program tracking data had completed a System Consultation and Pump Test
without going on to complete a System Analysis and Redesign; thereforg no participants were asked
about the System Consultation and Pump Test portion of the program.2e Note that no program savings
are claimed from the system consultations or pump tests. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of participants
surveyed, by subprogram.
D The program administrator tracks customers who are interested in System Consultation and Pump Tests separately
from the program-tracking database. No program energy savings are reported from this part of the program, which
offers information to customers.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 49
NAvTcANT
Figure 5. Breakdown of Participants Surveyed by Subprogram
System
Analysis and
Redesign
13
Equipment -Exchange \
24
Pivot and
Linear
Upgrade
29
Participating irrigator survey respondents represent small firms, with24 percent employing fewer than
three individuals during the growing season (as opposed to the harvesting season when employment
may spike temporarily). Only 26 percent employ 10 or more individuals during the growing season, as
shown in Table 24.The mean number of growing season employees is seven for these participants.
Less than 3
3 to less than L0
10 to less than 100
100 to less than 1000
Greater than 1000
Not sure/Don't Know/Refu sed
Total
16
29
17
0
0
4
66
24Vo
Mo/o
267o
OVo
0o/o
61o
100%
Both water and electricity are important operating expenses for participating irrigators. As seen in Figure
6, about one-third of respondents reported that they have water bills that represent 10 percent or more of
their annual operating costs, and more than half of respondents have electric bills that represent 10
percent or more of annual operating costs. Water makes up 21 percent of operating costs for these
participants while electricity makes up about 14 percent of operating costs, on average.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Table 24. Participant Size (Number of Growing Season Employees)
Page 50
NAvIGANT
Figure 6. Self-Reported Percent of Annual Operating Coets Made up by Water and Electric Bille
5.1.1 PrcgramSatisfaction
As shown in Figure 7, about two-thirds of participants (tl4 of 56 participants) were "very satisfied" with
their experience with the Irrigation Energy Savers program; another third (20 participants overall) were
"somewhat satisfied." The two other participants indicated that they were "neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied;" both of these participants had worked with the System Analysis and Redesign offering of
the program.
Figure 7. Irrigation Energy Savers Participant Satiefaction
When asked what changes they would like to see in the Irrigation Energy Savers program, nearly three-
quarters of participants had no suggestions for changes. Those participants who did have suggested
changes for the program offered the following:
" Offer larger incentives (identified by eight participants),
, Reduce paperwork/bureaucracy (identified by three participants),
, Increase clarity about deadlines/expectations (identified by three participants),
" Shorten program timeline (identified by two participants), and
> Increase kinds of incentives offered (identified by one participant).
Less than half of participants (rM percent) indicated they had contacted Rocky Mountain Power with
questions or requests for assistance at some point during their participation in the Irrigation Energy
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 51
Don't
Know/Not
Sure
15
OVoto 5o/o
5
>25o/o
7
'# Et"ctrrc
$mAndyde ud
Re*slgn
Plvotand Uner
Upgntb
0
EqrIpnEnt
E(cfiange
0
r\rbry Salbftd tsomowhd SelisEd rNeitherSatisfied or Dissdisfied
NAvTcANT
Savers program. All of the participants who contacted Rocky Mountain Power indicated that the
representatives they contacted were knowledgeable with respect to the program and its requirements and
were timely in addressing questions.
5.1.2 Program Awareness and Motivation
Nearly 30 percent of participants learned about the Irrigation Energy Savers program from trade allies,
and another 18 percent learned about it directly from program administrators, as shown in Figure 8.
\rVhen respondents were asked why their organizations decided to participate in the program, the most
frequently mentioned reason was to replace old or poorly working equipmen! followed by saving money
on electricity bills Table 25.
Figure 8. How Participants Heard about Irigation Energy Savers
Rocky Mountain Power printed materials
Rocky Mountain Power website
Previous participation in Rocky Mountain Power programs
Other (single response each)
Don't know/Not sure
Word of mouth
Rocky Mountain Power representative
Trade ally, vendor, or contractor
0% 1Oo/o 20Yo 30o/o 40% 50Yo 60Yo 70Yo 80o/o
Percent of Respondents
Table 25. Reason for Irrigation Energy Savers Program Participationso
To replace old or poorly working equipment
To save money on eleclricbills
To obtain an incentive
To save energy
To acquire the latest technology
To save water
Other (single response each)
Don't KnowAllot Sure
Total
s MultiPle responses were allowed. The percent of respondents indicates the percent of respondents who identified
the motivation listed as a reason for participating
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 52
48Y"
29/o
'l.2Yo
12/"
s%
3o/"
67"
3Yo
NAvr cANT
5.1.3 Program Process and Satisfaction
Participant responses indicate that the Irrigation Energy Savers program is working well. Each
subprogram relies on a different process/ and these are discussed separately here.
5.7.3.7 System Analysis onilReilesign
A project may qualify for System Analysis and Redesign if it includes adding capacity, changing the
water source, or replacing part or all of the irrigation system. The evaluation team focused surveys on
system analysis and redesign for L3 participants. About half (six) of these participants indicated that they
qualified because they were replacing part or all of their irrigation system; four were changing the water
source; and two were adding capacity. The other one did not provide a specific qualifying reason.
With this portion of the program, an irrigation specialist goes out to the participant's site to complete a
comprehensive project analysis and then provides a written report at no cost to the participant. All 13
participants were satisfied with this visit. All 13 respondents found the report that documented findings
from the project analysis and recommended efficiency improvements to be valuable. All 13 respondents
that participated in the System Analysis and Redesign program indicated that they received their reports
from the analysis in time to inform their energy efficiency improvement decisions.
Participants were asked if they had taken all of the actions indicated by the report. A large proportion of
respondents (11 of the 13) made all of the recommendations present in the report provided as a result of
participation in the System Analysis and Redesign. Two did not make all of the recommendations. All 13
respondents were satisfied with the overall performance of their redesigned system-10 were "very
satisfied," and three were "somewhat satisfied."
Ten of the L3 respondents who were surveyed about the system analysis and redesign portion of the
program recalled a post-installation inspection to verify their installation. Nine of these participants were
"very satisfied" with the post-installation inspectiory and one was "somewhat satisfied."
5.7,3.2 Piaot anil Linear Upgraile
Rocky Mountain Power provides cash incentives to participants for upgrades of wom pressure
regulators, low pressure drains, and sprinkler packages on pivot and linear systems. The evaluation team
focused the survey on pivot and linear upgrades for 29 participants. From the participant perspective, the
program includes working with a vendor, installing equipment, and notifying the program administrator
of the completed project, as shown in Figure 9.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 53
NAvTcANT
Figure 9. Flow Chart of Pivot and Linear Upgrade Proceeg
Ellslblc
Gusmerr
Plrdclpdng
Drdor
etfremAdmhlrtrff
Source: Rocky Mountain Power Irrigation Energy Savers Manual
When aske4 27 of 29 participants who completed pivot and linear upgrades indicated that their vendor
had been helpful; the other two were not sure. All29 participants indicated that they had installed the
pivot and linear equipment, and the installed equipment is still in place.
Nearly two-thirds of the participants (18 of 29) who were surveyed regarding pivot and linear upgrades
recalled a post-installation inspection to verify installation. All 18 of these respondents were satisfied
with the post-installation inspection; 10 were "very satisfied" and eight were "somewhat satisfied."
5.7.3.3 EquipmmtExchange
The evaluation team focused the survey on equipment exchange for 24 participants. From the participant
perspective, equipment exchange involves bringing old or wom equipment to a participating dealer,
completing an applicatiorL and installing new equipment that is provided at no cost to the participant, as
shown in Figure 10.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 54
NAvICANT
Figure 10. Flow Chart of the Equipment Exchange Procees
ElljlHc
Gurtomcn
PrrddpdnjDolcr fltojrrnr
Adnilnhtrrbr
Source: Rocky Mountain Power Irrigation Energy Savers Manual
Participants were asked if they found their vendor to be knowledgeable about the program; all24
participants agreed that they did.
Participants can exchange nozzles, gaskets, and drains through this program. For the participants
surveyed most had exchanged only gaskets, as shown in Table 26. Eighteen participants had exchanged
gaskets; 10 had exchanged nozzles; and four had exchanged drains.
Navigant Irnpact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 55
NAvTGANT
Drains only
Gaskets only
Nozzles only
Drains & Nozzles
Drains & Gaskets
Drains, Gaskeb, & Nozdes
Gaskets & Nozzles
0
t2
5
1
2
1
3
Total
Every respondent except one said that they installed the more efficient nozzles, drains, or gaskets they
received the same year the exchange took place, as shown in Table 27.The one respondent who did not
install all of the drains in the same year stated that not all of them were working. All24 respondents
indicated that at the time of the survey, the program equipment was still installed and functional.
Yes, installed equipment in the same year as equipment exchange 10
No, did not install equipment in the same year
18
Table 26. Equipment Exchanged through the Program
Table 27. Installation of Exchanged Equipment
Total
As shown in Figure 11, nearly all participants are "very satisfied" with the equipment. One respondent
was "very dissatisfied" with the nozzles received through the program; however, this respondent
declined to explain this rating.
Figure 11. Satisfaction with New Exchanged Equipment
Drains (n=4)Gaskets (n=18)
2
lVery Satisfied
I Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
E Verv Dissatisfied
rSomewhat Satisfied
ISomewhat Dissatisfied
trDon't Know/Not Sure
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
1810
Page 56
NAvI GANT
Less than half of the participants (10 of 24) who completed an equipment exchange recalled a post-
installation inspection to verify installation. All ten were "very satisfied" with the inspection.
5.1.4 Program lnfluence
The evaluation team asked participants several questions about the program hfluence on the project that
they completed with the Irrigation Energy Savers program. These questions can be grouped into three
general areas of influence: factors influencing the actual equipment installed as part of the project
(Influential factors), what would have happened in the absence of the program (Free-ridership), and the
program's influence on future energy efficienry purchases (Spillover).
5.7.4.7 Influmtialfactors
Respondents were asked how influential eight factors were in their decision to exchange equipment,
purchase and install new equipment, or make improvements after a system analysis with the Irrigation
Energy Savers program. They were asked to rate the importance of each factor on a scale of one to five,
with one being "not at all important" and five being "extremely important." The factors of familiarity
with equipment and the program incentive or equipment provided at no cost were both "extremely
important" for more than half of respondents. As shown in Figure L2, there were mixed responses for
most factors.
5.L.4.2 Eree-riilership
In order to determine to what extent the Irrigation Energy Savers program affected installation decisions,
the survey team asked respondents what would have been different about their installations were the
program not an option. Nearly half of the projects (31 out of 66) would have been completed with the
3r Importance of Water Saving Information was asked of participants surveyed regarding Equipment Exchange and
Pivot and Linear Upgrades (53 respondents). Importance of Information on Payback was asked of participants
surveyed regarding System Analysis and Redesign (13 respondents).
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 57
Figure 12. Factore Influencing Proiect Decisionscr
Familiarity with Equipment
Program lncentive/No Cost
Previous Participation
Water Saving lnformation
Vendor Recommendation
Corporate Policy for Energy Reduction
Energy Savings lnformation
lnformation on Payback
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Count of Respondents
,::Not AskedlNot lmportantAtAll
o Neutral!
tr Don't KnoMNot Sure/Refused
trSomewhat UnimportanttrSomewhat lmportant
Nz\vrcANT
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
same efficiency and to the same extent within the same year. Another 17 percent (11 out of 66) would
have completed the project in the same year but to a lesser extent or at a lower efficiency level. About 13
percent of projects would not have happened at all without the program. Details of how participants
described what they would have done if the Irrigation Energy Savers program had not been available are
provided in Table 28.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Not Sure/
Refused
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Not Sure/
Refused
Yes
Yes
Standard
Standard
Yes
No, Less
Yes
No, Less
29
2
8
2
1
12
2
9
1
Table 28. Proiects in Absence of Irrigation Energy Savers
Total
In some cases, participants provided inconsistent responses between their stated influential factors and
what they would have done without the program. For example, if the respondent stated that the financial
incentive was extremely important to their decision but that they would have installed the exact same
equipment at the same time without the program, the interviewer asked them to describe in their own
words what impact the program had on their decision. These responses were used to adjust self-reported
free ridership scores.
In additiory the program free-ridership was adjusted to account for prior program participation. Given
Rocky Mountain Powels efforts to cross-promote the entire portfolio of energy efficiency programs, a
respondent's prior participation in a Rocky Mountain Power program may have been influential in their
decision to participate in the current program. Ideally, this influence would be attributed to the prior
program as spillover savings since that program was responsible for the influence. However, given the
portfolio-level marketing approach that Rocky Mountain Power implements, respondents are unlikely to
be able to identify the prior program by name. Therefore, the evaluation team will attribute the savings
credit to the current program. This is done by reducing free-ridership scores by 50 percent for those who
say that the previous participation was "extremely important" and by 25 percent for those who say that
the previous participation was "somewhat important" in their decision.
After adjusting for inconsistencies and previous participatiory aboutlT percent of participants (11 of 66)
were classified as full free riders. These participants would have completed the same project within the
same year without the program as they did with the program. About 42 percent of the participants are
partial free riders; they might have achieved some savings without the program, but they would not have
achieved the same level of savings as with the program. Another 41 percent of the participants are not
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 58
NAvI CANT
free riders - they would not have achieved any savings without the program. A breakdown of free
ridership classifications is given in Figure 13. Note that there are only 11 projects that would have been
completed in the same manner without the program, compared to 29 projects for which the respondent
initially stated that they would have completed the same project without the program; this is due to
adjustments made for inconsistencies and previous participation influence.
Figure 13. Program Free Riders, by Irrigation Energy Savers Subprogramrz
Equipment Exchange (n=24)Pivotand Linear Upgrades (n=29)
Partial Free
Riders
12
Non Free
Riders
9
System Analysis and Redesign (n=t3)All Participants (n=66)
5.7.4.3 Spilloaer
There is some evidence that the Irrigation Energy Savers program is influencing additional energy
efficiency irrigation installations. Additional detail on both "like" and "unlike" measures installed by
respondents after participating in the Irrigation Energy Savers program is provided below,
Half of the respondents who completed additional projects had received assistance from Rocky Mountain
Power or another organization; therefore, their savings are not considered influenced by the Irrigation
Energy Savers program. The other half, were asked the extent to which they agreed with the statement
"My experience with Roclcy Mountain Power's lrrigation Energy Saoers program influenced my decision to install
additionalhigh fficiency equipmmt on my ousn." The majority of these participants agreed that the program
influenced their decisiory as shown in Figure 14.
32 Graphs are shown for all three sub-programs discussed in surveys; however, sampling and statistical significance
are for all participants in the program. Due to different responses, it may make sense to conduct a larger survey with
sufficient sample at the subprogram level in the next evaluation.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 59
NAvTcANT
Shongly
Disagree
1
\\-Neither
Strongly
Agree
7
Agree or
Disagree
2
_.- Somewhat
6
Nearly half (32 of 66) of the Irrigation Energy Savers participants indicated that they had completed other
"unlike" projects after participating with the project discussed during the survey. Installed equipment
included variable frequency drives for pumps, pivots, efficient pumps, sprinklers, and others shown in
Table29.
VFDs
Pivots
Pumps
Sprinklers
Motors
Nozzles
Pipes
Gravity flow lines
New Heads
Solar Ventilation System
New bulbs on equipment
New Hoses
Gaskets
Donit knowA.,lot sure
7
5
5
4
2
2
1
L
1
L
7
1
1.
2
Total
|ust over one-third of respondents (12 out of 32) who had completed additional "unlike" projects received
assistance from Rocky Mountain Power or another organization; therefore, their savings are not
considered influenced by the program. The other 19 respondents were asked the extent to which they
agreed with the statement " My experience with Roclcy Mountain Power's lrrigation Energy Saaers program
13 More than one response was allowed.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Figure 14. Irrigation Energy Savers Program Influence on Additional "Like" Proiects
Table 29. Efficient "Unlike" Equipment Installed After Program Participatione3
34
Page 60
NAvr cANT
influenced my decision to install additionalhigh eficiency equipment on my oum." The majority of these
participants did not indicate that the program influenced their decision, as shown in Figure 15.
Strongly Strongly
Agree
4
Disagree
2
Somewhat
Disagree
3Somewhat
Agree
1
Neither
Agree or
DisagreeI
In sum, the program appears to be influencing additional efficient actions with program participants;
however, the influence is mostly limited to "like" projects. ]ust one-quarter of participants who took
"unlike" actions (five out of 19) believed the program to have been influential in their decision; this is
compared to more than three-quarters of participants who took "like" actions (13 out of 16) who believed
the program to have been influential in their decision.
5.1.5 Further Energy Efficiency Opportunities and Barrierc
When asked whether there were additional energy efficiency improvements their organizations could
make, 71 percent of all respondents affirmed there were, as shown in Figure 16. The distribution of
responses across sub-programs is similar, indicating that Irrigation Energy Savers participants generally
believe that there are additional improvements that they can make, regardless of the kinds of
improvements made with the program.
The 47 respondents that indicated a belief in the ability of their firms to improve electric or water
efficiency were further asked to provide examples of what actions they could take. Potential further
efficiency measures indicated by respondents are shown in Table 30.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Figure 15. Inigation Energy Savers Program Influence on Additional "Unlike" Proiects (tr49)
Figure 16. Participant Indication of Further Energy Efficiency Opportunities, by Sub-Program
System Redesign Pivot and Linear Equipment Total
lYes, could make future improvements I No, could not make future improvements tr Not sure or Refused
Page 61
NAvICANT
Table 30. Potential Further Efficiency Measuress
Installing VFDs on equipment
Adding/improving/repairing pivots
Adding/improving/repairing sprinklers
Adding/improving/repairing gaskets
Adding/improving/repairing nozzles
Adding/improving/repairing pumps
Adding/improving/repairing pipes
trstall gravity flow equipment
Remove hands lines
New mainlines
Installing pressure monitoring equipment
Change wheel lines to low pressure pivots
43%
73Y"
77o/o
97"
67"
60/0
4V"
27o
aota/o
20/,
2"/"
2o/o
Don't know/Not sure 75o/o
34 Multiple responses were allowed. The percent of respondents indicates the percent who identified the specific
example and does not sum to 100 percent. One respondent identified "more incentives" as an example. This
respondent is included in the count of "Don't Know/Not Sure."
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 62
NAvTcANT
As shown in Figure 17,40 percent of respondents who indicated that they believed their firms could take
additional steps to improve electric efficiency beyond what they completed with the Irrigation Energy
Savers program did not have plans in place at their firms to implement such projects. Most respondents
with plans in place intended to implement projects with Rocky Mountain Power assistance;43 percent
reported having plans in place and intended to apply for assistance from Rocky Mountain Power, while
13 percent had plans in place but did not intend to apply for assistance from Rocky Mountain Power.
Figure 17. Indication of Plang to Implement Electric Efficiency Projects for Participants who believe
their Firn has Further Efficiency Opportunities
rYes, plans in place to implement projects - with
Rocky Mountain Power assistance
trYes, plans in place to implement projects -
without Rocky Mountain Power Assistance
tr No, plans not in place
r Don't Know/Not Sure
These respondents were asked what might prevent them from implementing electric efficiency
improvements. The most common potential barrier, identified by 72 percent of all respondents, was "high
upfront costs." The next most common potential barrier was a "lack of access to capital" with 15 percent
of respondents indicating that was a barrier for them. Table 31 shows barriers identified by Idaho
Irrigation Energy Savers participants.
Table 31. Participant Barriers to Further Efficiency Improvements$
High upfront costs
Lack of access to capital
Lack of time
Lack of information about savings and performance
Timing or coordination difficulties
Long payback period; slow rate of return
Confl icting financial obligations
72Y"
75o/"
6Y"
4o/o
,o/a/o
2Vo
ao/z/o
3s Multiple responses were allowed. The percent of respondents indicates the percent who identified the specific
barrier and does not sum to 100 percent.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 63
NAvTGANT
5.2 Idaho Non-Participant Finilings
In May and June of 2012, the evaluation team surveyed 73 Idaho firms on rate schedule L0 that did not
participate in any Rocky Mountain Power programs between 2009 and2011.
The majority of responding non-participants represent small firms. As seen in Table 32, more than half of
non-participant firms (52 percent) employed fewer than three people. O.ly one firm had 100 or more
employees.
Table 32.Size of Non-Participant Finns, by Number of Employees
Less than 3
3 to less than 10
10 to less than 100
100 to less than 1000
Greater than 1000
Not sure/Don't KnoWRefu sed
Total 100"/"
Non-participant respondents mostly identify with the dairy/agriculture industry. A handful of
respondents indicated that they were aligned with other industries or not representing a firm, but a
household; these "residence" respondents may have irrigation rate schedules because of wells or pumps
on their property. Figure 18 shows the distribution of primary activities for the surveyed non-participant
firms.
In order to understand the value of electric efficiency to non-participants, the evaluation team asked
respondents to identify the portion of operating expenses represented by electricity costs. Just over half
(41 out of 73) of Idaho non-participating firms were able to provide indications of the extent to which
their electric bills made up their total annual operating expenses. In total, these proportions ranged from
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 64
4%
1o/o
0%
l2o/"
38
22
J
7
0
9
73
52V"
3Oa/"
Figure 18. Primary Activity for Non-Participating Respondents
Manufacturing
Professional, scientifi c, and technical services
Accomodation
Finand and insurance
Construclion
lrrigation
Residence
Refused
Dairy/Agricultural
0o/o 10o/o 20% 30o/o 40% 50Yo 60Yo 7Oo/o 8Oo/o 90o/o 10Oo/o
Percent of
NAvr cANT
0 - L00 percent. The mean portion of operating costs represented by electricity for non-participants was25
percent, which is higher than the portion identified for participants (14 percent).
5.2.1 Awareness of Rocky iiountain Power Programs
Three-quarters of non-participants indicated awareness of Rocky Mountain Power programs and services
aimed at helping consumers reduce electricity usage/ as shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Non-Participant Awareness of Rocky Mountain Power Programs and Services
rAware that Rocky Mountain Power offers assistance to
improve energy efficiency
tr Not aware that Rocky Mountain Power offers assistance to
improve energy efficiency
Those respondents who were aware that Rocky Mountain Power offers incentives and technical
assistance aimed at helping customers reduce electricity usage were asked to identify what programs or
services Rocky Mountain Power offers customers in their class. This was an open-ended question;
customers were not prompted with a list of programs and were allowed to name as many programs or
services that they could. Several non-participants (26 out of 55) who were aware that Rocky Mountain
Power offers incentives and technical assistance were not able to identify a particular Rocky Mountain
Power program or service that would be available to them. The remaining 29 respondents who were
aware of programs provided 39 responses. Respondents were most aware of Irrigation Load Control and
incentives for efficient equipment as shown in Figure 20. Four respondents (5 percent) identified the
Irrigation Energy Savers program directly.
Figure 21 shows how non-participants, who were aware that Rocky Mountain Power offers programs,
indicated hearing about the programs. The most common source of program information (35 percent)
was from Rocky Mountain Power printed materials - forms or brodtures. The next most common
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 65
Figure 20. Non-participant Awareness of Pncgrame and Servicee
Self-Direction Credit
Technical assistance/Energy analysis
lnigation Energy Savers
Demand response/Load conhol
lncentives for efiicient equipment
lnigation Load Control
Not aware of programs
Not Sure/Don't Know
30Yo 40Yo 5006 60% 70o/o
Percent of Respondents
NAvTcANT
response (17 percent) indicated leaming about programs from the Rocky Mountain Power Newsletter.
Another 12 percent had leamed of programs directly from Rocky Mountain Power representatives.
Respondents were also asked how they would prefer to learn about Rocky Mountain Power programs.
Figure 22 shows the methods through which respondents prefer to learn about Rocky Mountain Power
programs. Non-participants mostly prefer to learn about programs through mail (27 percent), printed
materials (23 percent), newsletters (16 percent), email (15 percent), and phone (11 percent). Other
methods were mentioned by less than 10 percent of non-participants.
35 Multiple responses were allowed. \A/hile 2 of 55 respondents did not recall, the remaining 53 offered 57 sources.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 66
Figure 21. How Non-Participants Heard about Rocky Mountain Power Programs36
Rocky Mountain Power presentation/meeting
General knowledge/personal research
Online advertising
Accompanying billing
Trade ally, vendor, or contractor
Don't know/Not sure
Rocky Mountain Power website
Word of mouth
Previous participation in Rocky Mountain Power programs
Rocky Mountain Power representative
Rocky Mountain Power newsletter
Rocky Mountain Power printed materials/brochures
0o/o 10o/o 20o/o 30o/o 40o/o 50% 60% 7Oo/o
Percent of Respondents
SOYo 90o/o 100Yo
Figure 22.Prctened Method to Leam about Programs and Opportunities, Overall
Rocky Mountain Power presentation/meetings/workshops
Print advertisement
Don't knodNot sure
Rocky Mountain Power website
Accompanying bills
Rocky Mountain Power representative
Phone
Email
Rocky Mountain Power newsletter
Rocky Mountain Power printed materials/brochure
Mail
10o/o 20o/o 30o/o 40o/o 5Oo/o 60Vo 70o/o 80o/o
Percent of Respondents
NAvICANT
5.2.2 Non-Participant Energy Efficiency lmprovements
Non-participants were asked a series of questions about energy efficiency actions or improvements that
they may have taken during the program years of 2009 to 2011. These questions were in regards to: high
efficient equipment purchases, load or demand reduction efforts, and systematic evaluations or energy
analyses of existing facilities.sT
Of the 73 non-participants, 22 percent indicated that their firms installed high efficiency equipment
between 2009 and 201.1.;3 percent had assistance from Rocky Mountain Power, as shown in Figure 23. The
high efficient equipment installed by non-participants included pumps, gaskets, nozzles, sprinkler
packages, appliances, lighting, and VFDs (variable frequency drives).
About one-third of non-participants indicated that they implemented load control strategies for their
facilities. About two-thirds of these indicated having assistance from Rocky Mountain Power to
implement load control strategies, as shown in Figure 24. Specifically, the 16 respondents (22 percent)
who indicated that they had assistance from Rocky Mountain Power either identified the Irrigation Load
Control program directly or said that they had pumps that could be shut off by Rocky Mountain Power.
The other respondents (11 percent) who implemented load control strategies without Rocky Mountain
Power assistance identified timers on pumps (two), interruptible power (one), drains (one), pivots (one),
and variable speed drive pumps (one). Depending on how timers and other equipment are operated, the
effect may not control load at peak but may offer some other control benefit to the customer.
37 Respondents who reported taking energy efficienry actions or improvements were asked if they had received
assistance from Rocky Mountain Power, The evaluation team assumes that this assistance is not in the form of
program participation because the non-participant list was crosschecked with the participant tracking data by Rocky
Mountain Power.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 67
Figure 23. Non-Participant High Efficiency Equipment Purchases in Existing Facilities
lYes, purchased or installed high efficiency equipment between 2009 and 2011
without assistance from Rocky Mountain Power
EYes, purchased or installed high efiiciency equipment between 2009 and 2011
with assistance from Rocky Mountain Power
trNo, did not purchase or installhigh efficiency equipment
3%
NAvr cANT
Figure 24. Non-Participant Load Control Shategies in Exieting Facilitiee
rYes, implemented load control strategies between 2009 and 2011
without assistance from Rocky Mountain Power
rYes, implemented load control strategies between 2009 and 2011
with assistance from Rocky Mountain Power
trNo, did not implement load control strategies
About 4 percent of non-participants indicated that they conducted a systematic evaluation of their facility
in order to identify chances to improve energy efficienry. Just 1 percent indicated that they received
assistance from Rocky Mountain Power to conduct the evaluatiory as shown in Figure 25. One
respondent provided an example of action taken in response to the systematic evaluation; this respondent
had used pivots instead of pumps.
Those respondents who implemented energy efficient equipment load control strategies, or systematic
evaluations, but did not apply for assistance from Rocky Mountain Power, were asked why they had not.
This evaluation is focused specifically on Irrigation Energy Savers, which incentivizes some efficient
equipment and early replacement as well as providing technical assistance for systematic evaluation.
However, Rocky Mountain Power offers other programs that provide incentives for high efficient
equipment (FinAnswer Express and Energy FinAnswer), implement load control (Irrigation Load
Control), and support systematic evaluation (Energy FinAnswer). s Figure 26 shows the reasons that
respondents indicated for not applying for each action and the weighted overall responses.3e The most
common response (49 percent of respondents) was that they werq not sure. The next most common
response (23 percent of respondents) was that they were not aware that assistance was available. Others
indicated that they did not think they would qualify, did not think it would be worthwhile, did not think
about it or forgot or knew they would not qualify.
s Schedule 10 customers do not qualify for Energy FinAnswer or FinAnswer Express in Idaho, but some of these
customers may have more than one rate schedule for different areas of business.
3e Weighting is by the portion of non-participants responding to each questiory by type of action.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Figure 25. Non-participant Systematic Evaluations of Existing Facilities
rYes, conducted a systematic evaluation between 2009 and 2011
without assistance from Rocky Mountain Power
rYes, conducted a systematic evaluation between 2009 and 2011
with assistance ftom Rocky Mountain Power
tr No, did not conduct a systematic evaluation
Page 68
NAvI GANT
5.2.3 illotivations for Purcuing Efficiency lmprovements
Non-participants who indicated that their firms installed high efficiency equipment, implemented load
control strategies, or undertook systematic evaluations of existing facilities between 2009 and 2011 were
asked what motivated them to take that action. Figure 27 shows the motivations respondents indicated
for each action and the weighted overall responses.$ By far, the most common response was "to save
money on electric bills."
a Weighting is by the portion of non-participants responding to each questiory by type of action.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
Figure 26. Why Didn't Non-Participants Apply for Assistance from Rocky Mountain Power
0o/o 'loo/o 20% 3oo/o 40% 5Oo/o 60% 7Oo/o SOYo 9oo/o 100%
Percent of Respondents
:,Not sure/No response lWasn't aware rWould not qualify
r Small project size, not worth it r Didn't think about iUforgot tr Didn't know if qualified
Figure 27. Non-Participant Motivation for Pursuing Energy Efficiency Improvements
Overall
Systematic Evaluation
Load Control
High Efficient Equipment
lTo save money on electric bills
lTo replace old, broken, or poorly working equipment
trTo improve comfort
lTo save water
!To proteci the environment
40o/o 50o/o 600/o 70o/o 80o/o 90o/o
Percent of Respondents
lTo obtain an incentive
rTo save energy
trTo improve operations, produc{ion, or quality
rTo acquire the latest technology
rRocky Mountain Power initiated iUjust did it
1O0o/o
Page 69
NAvICANT
5.2.4 Further Energy Efficiency Opportunities and Barrierc
About 25 percent of the non-participating respondents indicated that they believed their firms could take
additional steps in order to increase electric efficienry. More than one-third (38 percent) stated that they
did not think their firm could make additional energy efficiency improvements. Another quarter (37
percent) were not sure, as shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28. Non-participant Indication of Further Energy Efficiency Opportunities
lYes, could make future improvements
r No, could not make future improvements
tr Not sure or Refused
38o/o
The 18 respondents who believed their firms could take additional steps to improve electric efficiency
were asked for examples of measures that their firms could implement in order to increase electric
efficienry. The most common response, by six non-participants was to "make upgrades to efficienry of
equipmen!" two non-participants each mentioned "purchase more efficient appliances, equipmenf and
lighting," "conduct technical analysis," and "make building envelope improvements."
The 18 respondents who believed their firms could take additional steps to improve electric efficiency
were also asked if they had plans in place to move forrnrard. As shown in Figure 29,56 percent did not
have plans in place at their firms to implement such projects. Respondents with plans in place were split
on whether they intended to implement projects with Rocky Mountain Power assistance;22 percent
reported having plans in place and intended to apply for assistance from Rocky Mountain Power, while
17 percent had plans in place but did not intend to apply for assistance from Rocky Mountain Power.
Figure 29. Indication of Plans to Implement Electric Efficiency Proiects for Non-Participants
!Yes, plans in place to implement poects - with Rocky Mountain Power assistance
trYes, plans in place to implement projects - without Rocky Mountain Power assistance
oNo, plans not in place
tDon't Knolv/Not Sure
Respondents who believed their firms could take additional steps to improve electric efficiency were
further asked what might prevent them from implementing electric efficiency improvements. Table 33
shows barriers identified by Idaho non-participants. The most common potential barrier was "high
upfront costs," followed by "lack of access to capital," "lack of information on savings and performance,"
and "nothing."
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 70
NAVICANT
High upfront costs
Lack of access to capital
Lack of information about savings and performance
Nothing
Don't know/Not sure
Total
Table 33. Barriers to Implementing Electric Efficiency Improvements
67Y"
11"/"
6o/"
6o/o
1.17"
LNo/o
5.3 Trade Ally Eindings
Irr |uly and August of 2012, the evaluation team interviewed six out of 11 active vendors in the Irrigation
Energy Efficiency Alliance. Interviewees were well versed in irrigation equipment and the market; they
included sales managers, district managers, and product managers with 12 to L5 years of experience in
their position.
5.3.1 Satisfaction
Most of the interviewed trade allies reported satisfaction with the program. Two were very satisfied and
three were somewhat satisfied. One was somewhat dissatisfied with the program; this trade ally noted
that dissatisfaction stemmed from the time it takes to communicate back and forth with the program
administrator. This trade ally rated the program contact, the program administrator, as "good" and said
that the customer project driven communication "met their needs," but also indicated that it takes a long
time to "get stuff done" for customers through the program. Therefore, this dissatisfaction is with timing
for customer projects and not with communication.
Three of the trade allies also worked with other similar programs. They suggested that the Irrigation
Energy Savers program could improve by being more streamlined or providing incentives for additional
equipment. One trade ally suggested that there had been a problem in the past when the program was
suspended for a few months that hurt one of his customers; however, the program was not suspended
between 2009 and 201,1,, so this response does not make sense for the program and indicates some
confusion. No other concems about program continuity and availability were raised.
5.3.2 Program Awareness and Motivation
Four of the trade allies indicated that they learned about the program from the program administrator.
One learned about the program directly from Rocky Mountain Power, and one learned about the
program from customers.
When asked about why they decided to get involved with the Irrigation Energy Savers program, trade
allies responded that they were motivated to get involved in order to help their customers. Trade allies
agreed that the program is good for irrigators, and they would like to see the program remain available
consistently.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 71
NAvI CANT
5.3.3 Training, Roles and Communication
Five of the six interviewed trade allies indicated having an in-person meeting with the program
administrator to discuss the program offerings. Two of the six trade allies indicated that they had follow-
up training; one of these considered a seminar offered by Rocky Mountain Power that included allies and
customers as follow-up training.
All trade allies reported that they have information on the program and believe that their role in the
program has been clearly explained. One trade ally who had not had follow-up training indicated a
desire for additional communication and information about the program.
Trade allies communicate directly with the program administrator. All trade allies described this
communication in positive terms. They indicated that they can always reach out to the program
administrator with questions, knowing that they will be able to reach someone who can help.
Communication is largely driven by customer needs. Trade allies will contact the program administrator
when they have new applications or when customers need more technical assistance with the program.
The majority of interviewed trade allies stated that they prefer email as a primary communication
channel, but other means were mentioned. Four prefer email communicatiory and two of these would
also like phone or mail communication as back up to the emails. One trade ally stays up to date with the
website and prefers communications online, directly on the site. One trade ally prefers newsletters.
5.3.4 Marketing
More than half of the trade allies (four of the six) interviewed indicated that they use the program to
market their services to customers. Mostly, this is in the form of letting customers know about the
program and associated incentives when discussing project options. Trade allies reported that the
incentive can influence customer purchasing decisions, and knowing that they can get some equipment at
no cost can lead to replacements that would not otherwise occur. Trade allies were asked how the
program helped their sales. Three indicated that they believe the program has led to increased sales of
efficient equipment. They specifically mentioned increased sales of variable frequency drives, gaskets,
and nozzles.
Trade allies would prefer to receive more marketing materials. Three interviewees offered suggestions to
improve the program marketing materials; all three suggested providing simple brochures with expected
costs and program incentives. One trade ally's response is representative: "A little brochure would be
perfect, so you could hand to people if they are curious. [The brochure would] have in there exactly what
it costs, what it takes to do it. [That way] a guy can just take it when he's busy and read it when he has a
few minutes. Sometimes, they come in and out of here, they are in a pretty good hurry, and so you don't
have a whole lot of time to explain to them what is going on." The evaluation team notes that there is a
brochure for the program that describes program steps Figure 30. This brochure explains all of the
program offerings, but it does not describe costs. Perhaps separate brochures by program component
could provide greater detail without becoming too complex.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page72
NAVICANT
clFrr:j{r
ErF--,tffi-rFFl-rrIF-r.
-r-F-..{ts--i-t-t.FFpiFl
ffiE
---b-
b-*F-LlFrt-
qi--qriFLryqttsr-
rfiF,ftqrFqtsEtsI---tllhtr--5
-.E---ffifr,#i-
-!r*-a.L-E-t--
-rhrF-Lif-I-ia-rlts-#---l1aI--rll-ff
-qQiqDts-ts-E-rf-l-r+Ft--
E*..b.t+*q|'*h!l-r-i--F.dbdqiq-
--r-EtsE-'t*LS-Lr-.
-pq-r-q-
-F{.-F-E
-h---E.El--f-.FrFl-r-
*4.ffis5
HflffiXE
t.Ilp-l.l-rral_-t--E-rrLIs'ury-rt FrqbrcIr-fltp-rl*r'+-#,ar-5-trbri+lFi-i-,aEil.l--p-..&r-tE-aqtiEIE-l-l'
-qGl*----Ur-F,'-hF.aEl-t-E-Erl:l---.--r-,f,tE-tF-FFi-FrEEtaaF
titrilrELdtr!6ri-t---F-
--Frl-r-FFtqrt.bl-E
-E--l---l+-rllilrrt-
--d-
&Sfiqr'rli-
F_l+E-E--FtEl-_-
.;- ' fiM11"{'S1\1ilr'.i-.; ;dff.3=ry;;3iffi--
-,It--Fr-
Ets!--l-t--+E-_--rF*L*i-- -
--t-lE-rg*'rrtrd;rt-E--r-a-r-----i,-Il-.-B
EErtrrF
-LFE-q-E-qErl.tr[
ttrr#+l.--t-E-El-rlm.qrrlnra+LLt-itbt-F
-qrr-*aDrEt----lll-Fr "{-*-,-t-{,+F-r-tq-
---l[Ir_+l--.-aF-a-rEhh-ra-J-t-E
-Ert------b*rF--+.F-aE-!-.dcOII+E--.p5rF.
aE-Er-!--a-a-Ja-E*|F.t--ia-dp5-|ts
5.3.5 Customerlnvolvement
The interviewed trade allies stated that about half of customers find out about the program from them,
whereas other customers know about the programs from their neighbors or other irrigators. Projects start
with either the customer contacting the trade ally or with the trade ally making suggestions to the
customer who may not have considered the program before contacting the trade ally. Relative
proportions varied across allies from a 50/50 split to 10190 for one proactive trade ally.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 73
Figure 30. Barriers to Implementing Electric Efficiency ImprovementsIP
ryrirats
NAvTcANT
Trade allies did not identify any differences in their work with customers working with the program and
those not working with the program, except that the trade allies explain the program to those customers
working with the program. Trade allies described similar sales strategies and customer service actions for
both groups.
When asked about projects that were not completed, trade allies stated that few projects would likely not
be completed. Rarely, with larger projects, the customer may not go forward, if the incentive tumed out
to not be enough to reduce high costs of equipment, to a level with which they were comfortable. Trade
allies noted that incompletion is not a concem at all with the equipment exchange portion of the program.
However, trade allies suggested that the application process could be streamlined. One specifically
mentioned time constraints involved with printing applications from the website and then filling them
out by hand. The trade ally does not mind doing this work, but the customer does not always want to
wait for the forms to be filled out. The trade ally would prefer to be able to print partially filled forms, or
to have simpler application forms. Another trade ally noted that the applications are a challenge for the
customers to fill out at home, and the customers do not always retum the completed forms. These trade
allies are referring to the three page applications for the equipment exchange and pivot and linear
upgrade portions of the program. These applications include program details and legal disclaimers. For
equipment exchangg the incentive is sent to the dealer based on the actual cost of the make and size of
the equipmenf this requires the dealer to write in additional information besides the count of equipment
of each type exchanged. Trade allies are familiar with another utility program in the state with a single
page application and prescriptive incentives by equipment type; the other application is simpler and
faster for them to fill out.
5.3.6 Effects of the Program
Trade allies were asked about the relative efficiency of the equipment that went through the program and
equipment that is not incentivized through the program. For both equipment exchange and the pivot and
linear upgrade equipment, trade allies stated that the program equipment is the same efficiency as what
people would purchase without the program. One trade ally noted that nozzles can be conventional or
low flow, and low flow nozzles (flow control nozzles) are more efficient. al This ally stated that the
conventional nozzles are 30 cents, compared to two dollars for low flow, and the program currently does
not incentivize them to convert conventional nozzles to low flow nozzles, but moving customers to low
flow nozzles would improve efficiency. The program manual indicates that the program will not cover
the cost of replacement low flow nozzles, "Please note that the full cost for replacement of flow control
nozzles will not be paid by the program. The program will pay the cost of standard nozzles toward the
replacement of flow control nozzles."4z
A couple (two of the six) trade allies could identify program-qualifying sales in 2011 that did not go
through the program. Both of these trade allies stated that there had been four or five pivot and linear
upgrades completed in the last year that would have qualified for the program but did not get processed
through the program. One trade ally said that the customers did not go through the program because
they did not want to take the time to deal with the application. The other trade ally indicated that these
al Low flow nozzles are not more efficient in all cases. They can reduce pressure variations across the system.
o Idaho Irrigation Energy Savers Program Manual. Page 5. Retrieved from
http://www.rockymountainpower.net/content/dam/ro&y-mountain_power/doc/Business/Save_Energy_Money/Agn
cultural_l.pdf
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page74
NAvTcANT
upgrades did not go through the program because the trade ally or the customer did not get the
application filled out.
Trade allies were asked to describe the program influence on their activities, as shown in Table 34.a3
While the reported influence of the program on sales was mixed, trade allies generally reported that the
program incentives were somewhat influential in their stocking practices.
Program incentives influence sales of program-eligible equipment
Program incentives influence stocking of program eligible equipment
lrVhen asked how their sales of program-eligible equipment would change if the Irrigation Energy Savers
program did not exist, three trade allies indicated that sales would decline and two were not sure (one
does not directly sell any equipment but only provides irrigation assistance). Trade allies expect that
without the program, customers would not replace equipment until it was brokery and they may install
cheaper direct drives rather than variable frequency drives for pumps.
5.4 Ooedl Process Eindings
From May through August 2012, the evaluation team surveyed or interviewed 55 participants, 73 non-
participants, and six trade allies. This section summarizes answers to the research questions for this
process evaluation.
5.4.1 Process Research Findings
The evaluation team sought to answer six process evaluation research questions. These questions are
listed here along with short summary answers.
1. What are the program goals, concept and design? Are they based on sound theory and practice,
and, if not, in what respects?
The Irrigation Energy Savers program in Idaho seeks to improve energy efficiency for irrigation sites.
The basic program theory is that providing technical assistance will help overcome information gaps
for customers and providing an incentive (or no cost equipment) will help overcome customer cost
s One interviewed trade ally coordinates between customers and vendors and does not directly stock or sell
equipment. One other trade ally did not stock equipment.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 75
Table 34. Program Influence on Trade Ally Sales and Stocking
NAvTcANT
barriers. Customers will replace wom equipment earlier with equipment exchange and pivot and
linear upgrades, and customers will run more efficient systems with help from the system analysis
and redesign; better equipment and irrigation practices will reduce water pumping and, therefore,
electricity use. More information on the design is indicated in the program logic model in the
program overview. Energy savings targets were set for the third party administrator under contract
to deliver the program in 2009 and 2010. The program set overall energy savings goals in 2011.
Savings targets were exceeded based on reported savings in 2009 and 20L0 and 99 percent of savings
targets were reported in 201.1.
2. Do program administrators have the resources and capacity to implement the program as
planned?
Yes. Program administrators indicated that they had the resources and capacity to implement the
program as planned. Program participants did not identify communication delays that might indicate
resource or capacity constraints. Participants and trade allies who contacted Rocky Mountain Power
indicated that the representatives were knowledgeable and timely. Trade allies indicated that they
had a primary program contact to which they could reach out and receive prompt and
knowledgeable assistance; only one trade ally indicated any communication delays.
3. Is the program being delivered as planned and if no! how and why?
Yes, the program is being delivered as planned. Both participants and trade allies described the
program operations as expected from the logic model , and 12 of L3 program outcomes were
positively affirmed in this evaluation. A few participants and trade allies noted that there could be
improvements in the application paperwork as well as in clarity of program expectations.
Table 8 lists the program outcomes indicated in the logic model along with findings based on the key
indicators and data sources reviewed in the process evaluation (refer to Table 8 for key indicators and
data sources). Only one outcome from the logic model was not affirmed in this evaluatiorL "Achieve
peak demand and energy use reduction targets." The reported savings in2011. (2,360,39'1. kWh) were
99 percent of the program target of 2,398,790 kWh. The impact analysis also indicates that the
program may not be achieving the reported savings.
4. Is the program reaching the intended target population, and if not, why? Specifically, are
eligible customers aware of the progr.rm, how are they becoming aware, and what is the
program's influence on their actions?
All irrigation rate schedule 10 customers in Idaho are eligible for the Irrigation Energy Savers
program, although sub-programs have different requirements. From 2009 to 2011, there were 851
participating projects from 528 sites and 369 unique from a base of approximately 4,782 customers.
This implies an estimated program reach of 7.7 percent of eligible customers (369 out of 4,782).
Are eligible customers aware of the program? To understand if eligible customers are aware of
the program, the evaluation team relies on non-participant responses. Of a representative sample
of non-participants, 75 percent affirmed that they were aware that Rocky Mountain Power offers
incentives and technical assistance to customers in their class to help them reduce electricity
usage. When asked what programs or services were offered to customers in their class, 14 percent
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 76
NAvr cANT
of non-participants indicated incentives for high efficient equipment, and 5 percent were
specifically aware of Irrigation Energy Savers.
How are they becoming aware? Customers who do begin working with the program mostly find
out about it from trade allies (29 percent) or Rocky Mountain Power representatives (L8 percent),
as is expected from the program logic model. Participants also indicate knowing about the
program because of colleagues and friends, previous participatiory the Rocky Mountain Power
websitg and printed materials/brochures. Non-participants who were aware of programs learned
about them through printed materials/brochures (35 percent), newsletters (17 percent), and
Rocky Mountain Power representatives (12 percent). Non-participants indicated preference for
mail (27 percent), printed materials (23 percent), newsletters (16 percent), and email (15 percent)
as ways that they prefer to leam about programs. Mailings, printed materials, and newsletters are
already used to reach out to the customer base, but email is not currently used.
What is the program influence on their actions? Participants are influenced to participate in
order to replace old or poorly working equipment (48 percent), save money on electricity bills (29
percent), obtain Rocky Mountain Power incentives (12 percent), and save energy (12 percent).
There is some indication of program influence on participant purchases with the program. Based
on participant self-report,45 percent of projects would have been completed within the same
year without the program while 14 percent would not have been completed at all. The other
projects would have been completed later or would not have had as large of energy savings
without the program. After adjusting for prior experience and inconsistencies, 17 percent of
participants are assumed to be full free riders-who would have done their projects without the
program, and 42 percent were partial free riders; the remaining 41 percent urere non free riders.
Free ridership varied over subprograms and was highest for equipment exchange. There is some
indication of spillover from this program, both like and unlike projects were completed with no
incentives at least partly due to the program influence.
5. What bariers are preventing customers from taking actions to reduce energy consumption and
deman{ and which ieopardize program cost-effectiveness?
Customers who thought there were additional actions they could take to reduce energy consumption
and demand were asked what might prevent them from doing so. The most common potential
barrier, identified by 72 percent of responding participants and 67 percent of responding non-
participants, was "high upfront costs." The next most common potential barrier was a "lack of access
to capital" with 15 percent of responding participants and 11 percent of responding non-participants
indicating that was a barrier for them. Among other barriers to further customer action to reduce
energy consumption and demand were lack of time and lack of information.
6. Are participants achieving desired outcomes, and if not how and why?
For the most part participants are achieving desired outcomes. Participants are mostly satisfied and
installing and keeping their equipment in operation as expected based on the program logic model.
Participants indicated that the program influenced spillover, and trade allies indicated that
program-qualifying equipment was similar to that purchased outside of the program.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page77
NAvTcANT
7. Additional process feedback from on-site cugtomet interview:
Several participants interviewed mentioned that the paperwork was submitted by the equipment
distributer or was delayed until after the measure was already installed. These discrepancies impact
the evaluator's ability to delineate between pre and post periods when reviewing billing records
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 78
NAVIGANT
Short-term Outcomes
Dealers promote the program
Customers are aware of the program
Customers refurn worn equipment
Dealers identify pivot and linear system
upgrades
Scope of irrigation consultation identified
Energy saving measures/ costs, and
benefits identified
Measures installed
Installation of measures verified
Participants or customers receive
incentivet and participants have reduced
first costs
Mid-term Outcomes
Dealers improve business for themselves
and increase program participation
Reduce kW and/or kWh at customer
facility
Long-tenn Outcomeg
Achieve peak demand and energy use
reduction targets
Customers observe energy and potentially
water savings
Trade allies use the program to market to customers. Trade allies are
the primary source of awareness among participants.
75% of irrigation non-participants were aware of any programs;5%
identified Irrigation Energy Savers by name, and 14% knew of
incentives for efficient equipment.
Participants and trade allies describe equipment exdrange with
returning equipment.
Trade allies assisted customers; participants and trade allies described
pivot and linear system upgrades in line with program design.
Program administrator scopes redesigns; program administrator
scopes and details work for customers.
Reports include information on measures, costs, and savings;
customers find these valuable.
Measures reported installed; only one was not installed in the first
year.
Verification dates are contained in the program tracking data for some
projects. Customers recall post-installation inspections.
Dealers received benefits for equipment exchange; Customers received
benefits for other upgrades.
Half of trade allies indicate that the program influences sales.
Customer activity is steady over time.
Customers realized expected savings and are keeping equipment in
place.
Reported savings exceed third party savings targets for 2009 and 2010.
Reported savings are 99"/o of overall savings goal in 201 1 .
Customers realized expected savings and are keeping equipment in
place.
Table 35. Program Outcomes and Findings
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 79
NAvr cA NT
Based on the findings from this evaluatiory the evaluation team has identified recommendations for the
Irrigation Energy Savers program. These recommendations will help the program meet energy savings
tarsets bv validatins measure performance and facilitatine participation. There is no current scheme orOJOL
metric established to rank the importance of specific recommendations. Therefore. the following are not
ranked accordins to prioritv or importance.
Continuation of the program would require modifications that will increase the likelihood of savings
occurring as expected. Some measures are successfully providing positive energy impacts, while others
are not. This program should not continue in its present form unless steps are implemented to confirm
that the impacts of each type of measure included in the program are net positive. If the program is to
continue, it should be considered as being in a test period.
Suggested modifications include, in no particular order:
1. If the program is to continue, it should be considered as being in a test period.
Increase progr.rm focus on Variable Frequency Drive fffD) applications. This measure has
positive impacts and an 80122 conhdence/precision interval. The upfront capital required for
VFDs reduces the potential for free-ridership. Also, growers cite the added flexibility is the
primary driver for adoption. Finally, the measure is in a fixed locatiory which aids M&V.
To reduce the potential for free ridership and aid data collection, the Company should
modify the program so that measures which readily transition between pumping stations
(i.e. non-center pivot non-pump specific measures) are incentivized via a direct install
mechanism. Measurement and Verification (M&V) of savings from mobile measures using a
billing analysis approach is not advisable because these measures readily diffuse across
multiple utility meters. Also, the impact from these measures can be lost in the "noise" of
billing data. (i.e. billing analysis is ineffective for non-meter specific measures due to the
order of magnitude of these measures' impacts relative to the overall metered energy use,
compounded with irregular operational schedules and a high probability for un-incentivized
maintenance or system redesigns to obscure the measure impact.) M&V using a bottom-up
engineering approach requires baseline information that cannot be collected after the fact. A
direct install delivery mechanism will reduce free-ridership and allow for the collection of
baseline operational data. The intent of this recommendation is to allow for pre/post
monitoring that can immediately assess measure savings with interactive impacts. This
change will increase the cost of implementing what would othenvise be very low cost
measures and may limit the number of these measures incentivized, but the benefit is that a
direct install model allows for better data to be collected in order to confirm positive measure
impacts before further program moneys are spent on measures with littlg or potentially
negative, impacts.
Establish protocols to ensure that installation dates are accurately captured. Some
applications were not submitted until well after the measure was already installed. This
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
2.
3.
4.
Page 80
NAvr cANT
makes billing analysis very difficult because it is difficult to ensure that the pre/post data
points are properly separated without losing a significant portion of the potential data points.
5. Revise the program to encourage and incent only those measures which are detemrined to
consistantly reduce energy usage, remove other measures from the program.
Determination of which measures remain in the program should consider waiting until after
further data collection while the program is in test period status or, until additional
performance based data is available to justify measure inclusion.
The program ehould be considered to be in a test period and regular follow-up evaluations should be
conducted until the program shows reliablg cost effective savings. The evaluation team has the
following recommendations for reducing uncertainty in the next program evaluation, in no particular
order:
Until the regionally deemed savings are considered in compliance, treat all measures that
are part of the program as custom and collect the data needed to verify savings at the time
of implementation.
Detemrine baseline energy use for implemented measures. This will require primary data
collection prior to measure installation. Data collection will need to include in-situ flow rates,
and either power spot readings or temporary energy use trends acquired using data
monitoring of pump power correlated to measured flow data. This step is particularly
critical for measures that can migrate between pumping stations, as they cannot be accurately
verified after the fact and without a site specific baseline. If the data required to quantify leak
reduction and system performance impacts can be collected without jeopardizing
participation or cost effectiveness, then this step should be maintained beyond the test
period.
Utilize additional survey tools to assess participant tendencies toward self-selecting into
the program due to anticipation of increased irrigation requirements. The expanded survey
needs to also verify if total irrigation system capacity changed at the time of participation.
Additional documentation of changes in system design can then be used to construct an
improved counterfactual baseline across all program measures.
Consider perfonning aRandomizeil Control Trial (further described in Section 3 of this
report) to address potential selection bias, in conjunction with the next program evaluation.
There are additional recommendations that could help reduce customer barriers and increase
participation.q If the program continues following the test period and implementation of the actions
previously described, the Evaluation Team suggests the following additional, second tier
recommendations, in no particular order:
1. Simplify the application process and provide clear guidance. The program manual
provides clear steps to participatiory but customers may be confused by the multiple ways to
a Short recommendations are included here. For context and more detail, see Section 6 Program Evaluation
Recommendations
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program Page 81
1.
2.
4.
NAvTcANT
2.
participate. Current applications are three pages long and require trade allies to fill in the
make and brand information for equipment exchanged. Removing program detail from
applications could shorten the application length. To reduce the time required to fill out
equipment exchange applications, a form-type application where the trade ally could store
commonly exchanged equipment "make" information would need to be developed. In
additiory trade allies noted that customers who do not want to wait for trade allies to fill out
applications by hand might take them home but then not return the application. Streamlined
applications could reduce the burden on trade allies and customers to participate in the
program. If the application cannot be modified simplified program explanatory brochures,
by sub-program, could make the program more accessible to customers. Clarifying and
simplifying application materials can increase participation and may encourage trade allies to
be more proactive with the program.
Shift focus toward measures that offer an improvement above the standard efficiency
baseline. One example is low-flow-high'precision center pivotnozzles. Variable rate
irrigatio+ computerized control, and emerging technologies provide additional alternative
measures. The program currently covers the cost of conventional nozzles to replace worn
nozzles exchanged through the program. Low-flow-high-precision nozzles offer an
opportunity to decrease water application and pumping needed to cover the same area. If the
program is able to move customers to more efficient technology, the program can capture
greater energy savings and meet energy savings goals.
Approach Sprinkler Packs as a fully custom measure. The impacts from center-pivot tuning
and maintenance are too variable to apply a fixed savings rate. Alsq a protocol is needed to
verify in-srtubaseline system performance so as to facilitate an engineering approach to
M&V.
As opposed to the current offer to retune center pivot systems back to original design specs,
investigate options for system redesigns that promote incremental improvements in
system ellicacy beyond current standard practice.as
Explore options to make financing available to customers for projects requiring capital
investment. \ /hile the program is designed to overcome the high upfront cost barrier
identified by participants and non-participants alikg there are no programs to help
customers overcome their lack of access to capital. Helping customers access financing, either
through direct financing, on-bill financing or partnerships with other institutions can
overcome this barrier. Accessible financing makes larger investments more attractive and can
drive additional savings. The most common potential barrier, identified by 72 percent of
responding participants and 67 percent of responding non-participants, was "high upfront
costs." The next most common potential barrier was a "lack of access to capital" with 15
percent of responding participants and 11 percent of responding non-participants indicating
that was a barrier for them.
Page 82
3.
4.
5.
6 Changes of this nature may need to be conducted and evaluated under a market transformation model.
Navigant Impact & Process Evaluation of
Rocky Mountain Power's Irrigation Energy Savers Program
NAvr cANT
Final Evaluation Report for Idaho's Irrigation Energy
Savers Program (PY 2009-20LI)
APPENDICES
Prepared for:
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FTOWER
A OtVtStON OF PACTFTCORP
Rocky Mountain Power
Prepared by:
N AV I G A N T rnpartnershipwith CMI
Navigant Consulting Lrc.
1375 Walnut Street
Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
303.728.25c0
www.navisantconsultins.com
May L4,2013
Energy Market Innovations, Inc.
83 Columbia St
Suite 303
Seattle, WA 98104
205-62L-11,60
www.emiconsultins.com
NAvICANT
Appendix A. Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Tenns... ..............A-1
Appendix B. Net Savings Methodology....... ............B-1
8.L Measurement of Net Savings Memo -fanuary 27,2072....... ............8-L
8.2 Net Savings Scoring - june 18,2012 ........8-LL
Appendix C. Impact Evaluation............... ................C-21
Appendix D. Process Evaluation Sunrey Instruments.............. ................. E-l
D.L IES EEA lnterview Guide.......... ..................E-].
L.1..2 Section 1: Participation............... ........................E-2
1.L.3 Section 2: Training Roleq and Communication...... ............E-3
1..L.4 Section 3: Marketing ......................E-3
1.1.5 Section 4: Customer lnvolvement .....................E-4
1.7.6 Section 5: Effects of the Program .............. ........E-5
1..1.7 Section 6:Business Impact........ .........................E-6
1.1.8 Section 8: Satisfaction with Program(s). ...........8-6
1.1..9 Section 9: Gas Card Offer/C1osing.......... ..........E-6
C.2 IES Participant Survey Instrument ............8-7
C.3 IES Non-Participant Survey Instrument ......................E-37
Confi denti al a n d Prop rieta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Repoi
Page i
NAvr GANT
A.7 Glossaryl
Adiustments: For M&V analyses, factors that modify baseline energy or demand values to account for
independent variable values (conditions) in the reporting period.
Allowances: Allowances represent the amount of a pollutant that a source is permitted to emit during a
specified time in the future under a cap and trade program. Allowances are often confused with credits
eamed in the context of project-based or offset programs, in which sources trade with other facilities to
attain compliance with a conventional regulatory requirement. Cap and trade program basics are
discussed at the following EPA Web site: <http://www.epa.gov/ airmarkets/cap-trade/index.html>.
Assessment boundary: The boundary within which all the primary effects and significant secondary
effects associated with a project are evaluated.
Baseline Conditions, including energy consumption and related emissions that would have occurred
without implementation of the subject project or program. Baseline conditions are sometimes referred to
as "business-as-usual" conditions. Baselines are defined as either project-specific baselines or
performance standard baselines.
Baeeline period: The period of time selected as representative of facility operations before the energy
efficiency activity takes place.
Bias: The extent to whidr a measurement or a sampling or analytic method systematically
underestimates or overestimates a value.
Co-benefits: The impacts of an energy efficiency program other than energy and demand savings.
Coincident demand: The metered demand of a device, circuit, or building that occurs at the same time
as the peak demand of a utility's system load or at the same time as some other peak of interest, such as
building or facility peak demand. This should be expressed to indicate the peak of interest (e.g.,
"demand coincident with the utility system peak") Diversity factor is defined as the ratio of the sum of
the demands of a group of users to their coincident maximum demand. Therefore, diversity factors are
always equal to one or greater.
Comparison group: A group of consumers who did not participate in the evaluated program during
the program year and who share as many characteristics as possible with the participant group.
Confidence: An indication of how close a value is to the true value of the quantity in question.
Confidence is the likelihood that the evaluation has captured the true impacts of the program within a
certain range of values (i.e., precision).
I Glossary definitions are provided to assist readers of this report, and are adapted from the Model Energy
Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide, US Environmental Protection Agency, November 2007
C;onfidential and Propietary PageA-1
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Reprt
Appendix A - Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Terms
NAvr GA NT
Cost-effectiveness: An indicator of the relative performance or economic attractiveness of any energy
efficiency investment or practice. In the energy efficiency field the present value of the estimated
benefits produced by an energy efficienry program is compared to the estimated total costs to determine
if the proposed investment or measure is desirable from a variety of perspectives (e.9., whether the
estimated benefits exceed the estimated costs from a societal perspective).
Database for Energy-Effi cient Resources (DEER):
A Califomia database designed to provide well-documented estimates of energy and peak demand
savings values, measure costs, and effective useful life.
Demand Side Management (DSM): See "Energy efficiency."
Deemed savings: An estimate of an energy savings or energy-demand savings outcome (gross savings)
for a single unit of an installed energy efficiency measure that
(a) has been developed from data sources and analytical methods that are widely considered acceptable
for the measure and purpose and (b) is applicable to the situation being evaluated.
Demand: The time rate of energy flow. Demand usually refers to electric power measured in kW (equals
kvvh/h) but can also refer to natural gas, usually as Btu/hr, kBtu/ hr, therms/day, etc.
Direct emissions: Direct emissions are changes in emissions at the site (controlled by the project sponsor
or owner) where the project takes place. Direct emissions are the source of avoided emissions for thermal
energy efficienry measures (e.g., avoided emissions from buming natural gas in a water heater).
Effective Useful Life (EUL): An estimate of the median number of years that the efficienry measures
installed under a program are still in place and operable.
Energy efficiency: The use of less energy to provide the same or an improved level of service to the
energy consumer in an economically efficient way; or using less energy to perform the same function.
"Errcrgy conservation" is a term that has also been used, but it has the connotation of doing without a
service in order to save energy rather than using less energy to perform the same function. Demand Side
Management (DSM) is also frequently used to refer to actively-managed energy efficiency initiatives.
Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM): A permanently installed measure which can improve the efficiency
of the Customer's electric energy use.
Engineering modet Engineering equations used to calculate energy usage and savings. These models
are usually based on a quantitative description of physical processes that transform delivered energy
into useful work such as heat, lighting, or motor drive. In practice, these models may be reduced to
simple equations in spreadsheets that calculate energy usage or savings as a function of measurable
attributes of customers, facilities, or equipment (e.g, lighting use = watts x hours of use).
Eror: Deviation of measurements from the true value.
Evaluation: The performance of studies and activities aimed at determining the effects of a program; any
of a wide range of assessment activities associated with understanding or documenting program
performance, assessing program or program-related markets and market operations; any of a wide range
of evaluative efforts including assessing program-induced changes in energy efficiency markets, levels of
demand or energy savings, and program cost-effectiveness.
hnfidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix A - Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Terms
Page A-2
NAvr cANT
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V): Data collectiory monitoring, and analysis
associated with the calculation of gross and net energy and demand savings from individual sites or
projects which is performed in conjunction with a program or portfolio evaluation (see Evaluation).
Evaluated savings estimate: Savings estimates reported by an evaluator after the energy impact
evaluation has been completed. Often referred to as ExPost Saoings (From the Latin for "from
something done afterward.")
Free driver: A non-participant who has adopted a particular efficiency measure or practice as a result of
the evaluated program.
Free rider: A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or practice in the
absence of the program. Free riders can be total, partial, or deferred.
Gross savings: The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results directly from
program-related actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they
participated.
Impact evaluation: An evaluation of the program-specific, directly induced changes (e.g., energy and/or
demand usage) attributable to an mergy efficienry program.
Independent variables: The factors that affect energy use and demand, but cannot be controlled (e.g"
weather or occupancy).
Interactive factors: Applicable to IPMVP Options A and B; changes in energy use or demand occurring
beyond the measurement boundary of the M&V analysis.
Load shapes: Representations such as graphs, tables, and databases that describe energy consumption
rates as a function of another variable such as time or outdoor air temperature.
Market effect evaluation: An evaluation of the change in the structure or functioning of a market, or
the behavior of participants in a market, that results from one or more program efforts. Typically, the
resultant market or behavior change leads to an increase in the adoption of energy-efficient products,
services, or practices.
Market transformation: A reduction in market barriers resulting from a market interventiory as
evidenced by a set of market effects, that lasts after the intervention has been withdrawry reduced, or
changed.
Measurement A procedure for assigning a number to an observed object or event.
Measurement and Verification (M&V): Data collection, monitoring, and analysis associated with the
calculation of gross energy and demand savings from individual sites or projects. M&V can be a
subset of program impact evaluation.
Measurement boundary: The boundary of the analysis for determining direct energy and/or demand
savings.
Conf i d enti al and P ropietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix A - Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Terms
Page A-3
NAvr cANT
Metering: The collection of energy consumption data over time through the use of meters. These meters
may collect information with respect to an end-use, a circuit, a piece of equipment, or a whole building
(or facility). Short-term metering generally refers to data collection for no more than a few weeks. End-
use metering refers specifically to separate data collection for one or more end-uses in a facility, such as
lighting, air conditioning or refrigeration. Spot metering is an instantaneous measurement (rather than
over time) to determine an energy consumption rate.
Monitoring: Gathering of relevant measurement dat+ including but not limited to energy consumption
data, over time to evaluate equipment or system performance, e.5., driller electric demand, inlet
evaporator temperature and flow, outlet evaporator temperature, condenser inlet temperature, and
ambient dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity or wet-bulb temperature, for use in developing a
chiller performance map (e.9., kWton vs. cooling load and vs. condenser inlet temperature).
Net savings: The total change in load that is attributable to an energy efficienry program. This change
in load may include, implicitly or explicitly, the effects of free drivers, free riders, energy efficiency
standards, changes in the level of energy service, and other causes of changes in energy consumption or
demand.
Net-to-gross ratio (NTGR): A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program
savings that is applied to gtoss program impacts to convert them into net program load impacts.
Non-participant Any consumer who was eligible but did not participate in the subject efficiency
program, in a given program year. Each evaluation plan should provide a definition of a non-
participant as it applies to a specific evaluation.
Nonnalized annual consumption (NAC) analysis: A regression-based method that analyzes monthly
energy consumption data.
Participanfu A consumer that received a service offered through the subject efficienry program, in a
given program year. The term "seryice" is used in this definition to suggest that the service can be a
wide variefy of services, including financial rebates, technical assistance, product installations, training
energy efficienry information or other services, items, or conditions. Each evaluation plan should define
"participant'' as it applies to the specific evaluation.
Peak demand: The maximum level of metered demand during a specified period, such as a billing
month or a peak demand period.
Persistence sfudy: A study to assess changes in program impacts over time (including retention and
degradation).
Portfolio: Either (a) a collection of similar programs addressing the same market (e.g., a portfolio of
residential programs), technology (e.g., motor efficiency programs), or mechanisms (e.g, loan programs)
or (b) the set of all programs conducted by one organization, such as a utility (and which could include
programs that cover multiple markets, technologies, etc.).
C,o nfi de nti al a n d P ro pi et a ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix A - Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Terms
Page A4
NAvTcANT
Potential studiee: Studies conducted to assess market baselines and savings potentials for different
technologies and customer markets. Potential is typically defined in terms of technical potential, market
potential, and economic potential.
Precision: The indication of the closeness of agreement among repeated measurements of the same
physical quantity.
Primary effects: Effects that the project or program are intended to achieve. For efficienry progtrms,
this is primarily a reduction in energy use per unit of output.
Process evaluation: A systematic assessment of an energy efficiency program for the purposes of
documenting program operations at the time of the examinatiory and identifying and recommending
improvements to increase the program's efficiency or effectiveness for acquiring energy resources while
maintaining high levels of participant satisfaction.
Program: A group of projects, with similar characteristics and installed in similar applications. Examples
could include a utility program to install energy-efficient lighting in commercial buildings, a developer/s
program to build a subdivision of homes that have photovoltaic systems, or a state residential energy
efficiency code program.
Proiect An activity or course of action involving one or multiple energy efficiency measures, at a single
facility or site.
Rebound effech A change in energy-using behavior that yields an increased level of service and occurs
as a result of taking an energy efficienry action.
Regression analysis: Analysis of the relationship between a dependent variable (response variable) to
specified independent variables (explanatory variables). The mathematical model of their relationship
is the regression equation.
Reliability: Refers to the likelihood that the observations can be replicated.
Remaining Useful Life (RLJL): An estimate of the remaining number of years that a technology being
replaced under an early retirement program would have remained in place and operable. Accurate
estimation of the RUL is important in determining lifetime program savings and cost effectiveness.
Reported savings eetimate: Forecasted savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes.
Often referred to as Ex Ante Saoings (From the Latin for "beforehand.")
Reporting period: The time following implementation of an energy efficienry activity during which
savings are to be determined.
Resource acquisition program: Programs designed to directly achieve energy and or demand savings,
and possibly avoided emissions
Retrofit isolation: The savings measurement approach defined in IPMVP Options A and B, and
ASHRAE Guideline 14 that determines energy or demand savings through the use of meters to isolate
the energy flows for the system(s) under consideration.
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Reprt
Appendix A - Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Terms
Page A-5
NAvICANT
Rigor: The level of expected confidence and precision. The higher the level of rigor, the more confident
one is that the results of the evaluation are both accurate and precise.
Spillover: Reductions in energy consumption and/or demand caused by the presence of the energy
efficiency program, beyond the program-related gross savings of the participants. There can be
participant and/or nonparticipant spillover.
Statistically adiusted engineering (SAE) models: A category of statistical analysis models that
incorporate the engineering estimate of savings as a dependent variable.
Stipulated values: See "deemed savings."
Takeback effecfu See "rebound effect."
Uncertainty: The range or interval of doubt surrounding a measured or calculated value within which
the true value is expected to fall within some degree of confidence.
bnfidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix A - Glossary of Frequently-Used Evaluation Terms
Page A6
NAvI CANT
8.1 Measurentent of Net Saoings Memo -January 27,2072
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Shawn Grant Esther Giezendanner, PacifiCorp
Kevin Cooney, Matt Haakenstad, and Mike Yim, Navigan! Ellen Steiner, ]ess
Chandler, and ]eremy IGaft, Energy Market Innovations, Inc
]anuary 27,2012
Measurement of Net Savings
This memorandum provides context and suggested approaches for estimating net savings so that the
team can decide whether to move forward with this approach or continue to make changes.
Estimation of net savings attempts first to assess program influence on the participants' decision to
implement an energy efficiency project. This estimation includes an examination of the program's
influence on three key characteristics of the decision related to the project: timing, scope, and extent.
Measurement of net savings then attempts to estimate program influence on the broader market with
respect to non-program actions (free-ridership and spillover). These two efforts are combined for an
overall estimate of net savings. First, the previous method is briefly described for context followed by
our proposed method moving forward.
Preoious method for measuretnefl.t
The approach used in past evaluations for estimating program influence consisted of presenting
program participants a battery of six core questions, used in combinatiory to derive free-ridership scores
included in net-to-gross calculations. The six core questions were:
r Would the participant have installed the equipment without the program?
o Had the participant already ordered or installed the equipment before learning about the
program?
o Would the participant have installed the equipment to the same level efficienry without the
program incentive?
o Would the participant have installed the same quantity of equipment without the program?
o In absence of the program, when would the participant have installed the equipmen! were they
planning to install the equipment in the same year?
o Was the equipment included in the participan/s most recent capital budget?
Responses to these survey questions were evaluated using a scoring matrix (for an example of this
matrix see Appendix G.L in Final Evaluation Report For Wyoming's FinAnswer Express Programz) to
determine each participant's free-ridership score. Spillover was not quantitatively assessed in past
evaluations.
2 Navigant and EMI. Final Eoaluatian Report For Wyoming's FinAnswer Express Program. Prepared for Rocky Mountain
Power. October 25, 2011,.
hnfidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-1
NAvr cANT
Reasons for proposing a fleu) methoil
Though a consistent net savings estimation technique across programs is desirable to ensure
comparabilif, our experience with the previous method provided several "lessons learned." Based on
this experience, we believe a more rigorous approach is advisable and that the benefits of improved
validity outweigh the benefits of a consistent methodology between program years.
The changes recommended result in a more granular and holistic approach to assessing program
influence. First, the previous method did not adjust the questions to get meaningful responses by
measure type from the participants. This absence was particularly apparent on large custom projects,
such as Energy FinAnswer. For Wyoming the savings by measure could be accomplished only for
lighting, and for previous evaluations, no attempt was noted in the reports to attempt to describe net
savings by measure. Also, our methodology did not include any estimation of spillover savings
attributed to the program and only assessed free-ridership. The absence of spillover in our net savings
estimation results in a conservative estimate of program impacts.
Our recommended changes to the free-ridership battery are based on recent research conducted in
Massachusetts on best practices in free-ridership and spillover estimation techniques3. This research is
not only timely, but it has also been rigorously reviewed. The report was created by a team of
experienced evaluators (Tetra Tech, KEMA, and NMR) and reviewed by program staff at eight utilities
operating in Massachusetts including National Grid and NSTA& two of the largest investor-owned
utilities in New England both with long histories of energy efficiency programs. Members of the
PacifiCorp's evaluation team were integral to both the development and implementation of these
methodologies in2007,2009, and again in 2011. Implementing these recommendations provide the
following benefits to the evaluation:
o Targeted questions improve intemal validity of free-ridership estimates.
o The methodology creates a calculated estimate of free-ridership savings compared with the
scored estimate previously used.
In addition to estimating program free-ridership, we also recommend that the evaluation quantitatively
assess participant spillover. As programs mature and transform their target market quantifying
spillover allows for evaluators to recognize the programs' market effectsa. Spillover savings can be
classified into two categories based on measure types: "like" spillover and "unlike" spillover.
. "Like" spillover savings are the energy savings associated with additional high efficiency
equipment installed outside of the program of the same end-use as what that participant
installed through the program. For example, if the participant installed high-efficienry lighting
fixtures as part of the program, "like" spillover would be limited to any additional high
efficienry lighting installed without any assistance from PacifiCorp but influenced by program
activity. This type of spillover is quantifiable using program tracking savings as a proxy.
Historically, spillover results in a small portion of the overall program athibution (in the
Massachusetts studies cited above, it represented 8.8 percent of the overall attribution score).
3 Tetra Tech, KEMA, and NMR. Cross-Cutting COI Free-Ridership and. Spillooer Methodology Study Final Report.
Prepared for the Massachusetts Program Administrators. April 18,2071.
a Saxonis, William P. New York State Departrnent of Public Service. Free-Ridership and Spillover: A Regulatory
Dilemma. IEPEC. 2007
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Repofi
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-2
NAvr GANT
o "Unlike" spillover savings are the savings associated with any other high efficiency equipment
installed outside of the program that are not of the same end-use category as what installed
through the program. Continuing the example above, if the participant installed high efficiency
lighting through the program, the high efficiency HVAC equipment installed outside of the
program would be considered "unlike" spillover as it is not the same end-use.
Spillover savings can come from participants, who are influenced by their program participation to
conduct further energy efficiency improvements, known as "participanf' spillover. Spillover questions
can be added to the participant surveys conducted for projects completed at least 6 months prior. Asking
participants who have just completed a project with the program about spillover from that program may
not be productive, since participants are unlikely to have the opportunity to install any spillover
measures.
Spillover savings can also come from non-participants. Non-participants may be influenced by program
advertisements or other program actions (like contractor training, upstream buy-downs, etc.) and make
energy efficiency improvements without assistance from any program. This is known as "non-
participan(' spillover. Non-participant spillover can be most easily quantified by interviewing
participating vendors and other supply chain actors. During these interviews, the evaluation team can
assess the amount of measure adoption that occurred outside of the program compared to what
occurred through the program. Again, using program-tracking data as a proxy, we can estimate outside
sales. This estimate of outside sales will capture both "like" and "unlike" spillover savings. We will
remove "like" spillover estimates as reported by participants to avoid double-counting.
Litnitations
There are limitations with our proposed changes (these limitations were also present in our previous
methodology).Our participant estimates are still limited to self-reported responses to a hypothetical
situation (i.e., what would have happened absent the program). However, we feel that proper survey
design and fielding protocols can mitigate the problems associated with self-reportt6In additiory
without detailed market level baseline dat4 the self-report methodology is still the most appropriate and
cost-effective way to estimate program influence at the detail needed to assist in program designz.
Likewisg our experience in Wyoming indicated that it was not fruitful or cost-effective to review project
file text for the purposes of enhancing the self-reported responses.
Figure 1 illustrates the adjustment steps taken when evaluating net savings. In contrast with the gross
savings, which usually can be directly measured with instrumentatiory the adjustments made to reach
net savings are measured indirectly. This is important to keep in mind as the farther from the actual
measure we get, the less precise findings can be.
s Keating, Kenneth M., PhD. Free-Ridership Borscht Don't Salt the Soup. IEPEC. 2009
6 Megdal, Lori, Megdal & Associates, LLC, Yogesh Patil, Energy & Resource Solutions, Inc., Cherie Gregoire and
|ennifer Meissner, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and Kathryn Parlin, West Hill
Energy & Computing, Inc. Feasting at the Ultimate Enhanced Free-Ridership Salad Bar. IEPEC. 200
7 National Action Plan for Energy Efficienry (2007). Model Energy Efficiency Program lmpact Evaluation Guide.
Prepared by Diane Munns and Jim Rogers. <www.epa.govleeactionplan
bnfi d enti al and P ropieta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-3
NAvI CANT
For illustration purposes, consider a participant in the FinAnswer Express program:
A participant installs a variable frequency drive on a fan motor with the program and
gets an incentive. The program and evaluators can measure the energy consumed by the
new variable frequency drive either directly, depending on configuration, or based on
the hours it is observed to be operating and its features. This consumption is compared
to a baseline estimate of what would have been consumed by a direct drive in the same
case. There is high confidence that the savings are accurate.
Thery the evaluators ask the participant if they would have installed the same variable
frequency drive at the same time without the incentive; the participant can consider
whether the previous drive needed to be replaced at the same time and the relative costs
to decide what might have happened. Then, the evaluators ask the participant if they
installed any other variable frequenry drives since participating in the program and
how much the program influenced their choice; the participant can consider the time
frame of installation and determine (probably more easily with this equipment type than
some others) if something similar was installed.
Exploring still further, the evaluators ask the participant if they installed any other
efficient equipment - now the participant has to think about the time frame and relative
efficiencies of any equipment purchased since the program involvement. When asked
how influential the program was on these purchases, the participant is expected to think
through many decisions.
As a thought exercise, we can imagine that gross savings for a program and measure type are estimated
to be 100 kWh. Based on participant responses, the free-ridership ratio is estimated tobe2D%; the sample
was random and drawn to meet 90% confidence and 10% precisiory so the range of this estimate is 18%
to 22%. Of all the possible spillover, only "like" spillover can be quantitatively assessed, and it is
estimated to be L0% with the same confidence and precision leading to an estimate of 9o/o to 11%. The
unlike participant spillover questions revealed that participants are more likely to install efficient unlike
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page 84
NAvr GANT
equipment than like equipment and attribute it to program influencg and market allies confirm that they
are seeing activity outside of the program.
These adjustments result in net savings of 90 kWh with a range of 87 kwh to 93 kWh. However, these
numbers cannot capture the other spillover that we can only qualitatively assess. We may say we think it
is closer to the higher number because participant and market ally responses reflect additional program
influence, but this is a subjective assessment and may not be appropriate given the need for defensible
savings estimates. In some cases, we may find high free-ridership responses and not identify any
quantifiable "like" spillover even if much unquantifiable spillover can be described. In these cases,
reporting net savings may reflect poorly on the actual program influence.
Though this method provides net savings that are much less precisely estimated than the gross savings,
we feel that, given the design of the PacifiCorp programs, it is the most cost-effective and consistent
method to assess program attribution.
Propo seil metho d for fiieasuretnent
This section includes brief recommendations for measuring free-ridership and spillover to get to a net
savings estimate.
Erce-rtderchip
To improve the test of the counterfactual (i.e., what would have the participant done without the
assistance of the program), we recommend more targeted free-ridership questions. As a start, we
recommend refining the initial free-ridership question (Would the participant have installed the
equipment without the program?). This question would be altered to include "at the same time" to
clarify the timing component of the decision. It would also be preceded by a brief description of all the
assistance the customer received as part of their participation in the program (e.9., technical design
assistance, the amount of any monetary incentives, any program-subsidized financing). This description
would be customized by program and by project (as data are available). This description is intended to
remind the participant of all the ways the program may have influenced their decision to move forward
with a specific project.
Thery we recommend asking targeted questions about quantity and efficiency of equipment that would
have been installed (or actions that would have been taken) without the program while referencing what
the participant did with the program.
Including these revisions in the free-ridership battery will allow the evaluation team to use a calculation
approach to estimating the amount of energy savings that may have occurred without the program.
This approach is detailed in Figure 2 below.
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-5
NAvTcANT
Yr!t
lnr*tes*.r IL_r-___-=J
Ye6
_t,,, \(errl-r)\/\./Yib
(..9-. RCx Sudy)
FR4lwrh 12nud*
QS>1
Based on the participant's responses, the team can estimate the percentage of equipment that would
have been installed at the same time without the program (the quantity score) and the percentage of that
installed equipment that would have been high efficiency equipment (the efficiency score)e. The product
of these two estimates is the initial free-ridership ratio.
Free-Ridership Ratio = Quantity Score x Efficiency Score
For example, a participant that installed four high efficiency HVAC units through the program reports
that without the program, they would have not installed the same measures at the same time. Following
up, the respondent states they would have installed some equipment and it would have been installed
within 12 months. When probed about the level of efficiency of the equipment that would have been
installed absent the program, the participant reports that they would have installed equipment that was
more efficient than baseline but not as efficient as the program-eligible equipment. Finally, they report
they only would have installed one unit (instead of four). Using the scoring abovg this participanfs
efficienry score would be set to 0.5 and the quantity score would be set to 0.25. Their initial, unadjusted
free-ridership score is then the products of these two scores or 0.125. This figure indicates that 12.5
percent of the savings attributed to this project would have occurred absent the program.
8 Question text will be altered for projects where quantity is not applicable. For example, if a project consisted of the
installation of an EM$ the quantity question would be skipped.
e This multiplicative approach is appropriate as the score is the result of a product of the quantity installed and not a
product of probabilities (Keating. Free-Ridership Borscht: Don't Salt the Soup.IEPEC. 2009).
Confide ntial a n d P ro pi eta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page 8-6
Figure 2. Enhanced Free-riderahip Calculation Approach
FR.lk{ng9orrEildry3orQnlySs.
NAvI CANT
This ratio can then be adjusted by the responses to other questions already referenced in the battery.
These include any reported changes in the timing of projects as a result of the program and the reported
influence of various factors on the decision to install the equipment. These adjustments are not detailed
in this document, as they will be tailored to individual program design. As part of these adjustments, we
recommend that the list of factors be expanded to include "other PacifiCorp program participation."
This addition will allow evaluators to adjust free-ridership based on PacifiCorp's portfolio level outreach
efforts. For example, if a participant received sequential incentives from two different PacifiCorp
programs, his or her participation in the first program may have increased their awareness of the
secondary program. In this situatiory their responses to free-ridership questions regarding the secondary
program may present this participant as a free-rider. In this situatiory we can use the responses to the
influence questions to assess if the secondary project was influenced by PacifiCorp actions from another
program. If so, PacifiCorp should receive attribution for those savings and free-ridership would be
adjusted downward.
This methodology requires several adjustments when applied to programs that offer custom incentives
or to programs that utilize unique mechanisms to achieve savings. First, the self-report survey should
include complete and accurate descriptions of what measures were implemented as part of custom
projects. Alsq as custom programs often work with participants to implement a variety of end-uses
under the "custom" umbrella, custom projects should be evaluated holistically and not at the end-use
level. Similarly, unique programs may require additional refinements to question wording. For example,
when assessing a recommissioning program/ the interview may seek to assess the decision to conduct
the initial project study instead of the decision to implement the energy-saving opportunities identified.
Finally, for complex or large projects, the self-reported estimate can be verified by a review of project
documentation (if available) and follow-up interviews with the contractors associated with the project.
These additional steps can be costly and should only be considered when the savings of the project make
up a significant portion of the program's overall savings or contractor outreach is a significant part of the
program design.
As an example, we provide recommended free-ridership questions for the Energy FinAnswer program
in Figure 3.
bnfidential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-7
NAvt cANT
10 Variables and notes to the interviewer are in ALL CAPS. The variable MEASURE_TYPE is grouped and worded
by measure types, such as "lighting equipment" or "FfVAC equipment" with specific measures installed identified
for the respondent to be sure they understand what is meant.
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
DIL{FT10
...[READ: "With the Energy FinAnswer program, FIRM received technical assistance and financial
incentives. FIRM installed LIST-MEASURES with the program."
REPEAT FOR EACH MEASURE-TYPE-# LISTED UP TO 2.
READ: "For these next questions, please focus on MEASURE-TYPE-# which includes
MEASURE-TYPE-#-INST for your proj ect."l
FR2. Without the program, meaning without either the technical assistance or the financial
incentive, would you have still installed the exact same MEASURE-TYPE-# at the same time?
[F I=YES] => REPEAT for next MEASURE-TYPE or go on to spillover
[F 1=NO] => gotoz
FR3. Without the program, would you have installed any MEASURE-TYPE-# equipment?
[IF 2=YES]=> go to 3
[F 2=NO]=> GO BACK TO 1 for next MEASURE-TYPE or go on to spillover
FR4. Without the program, would you have installed this equipment within 12 months of when
you did with the program?
[F 3=YES]=> go to 4
[F 3=NO]=> GO BACK TO 1 for next MEASURE-TYPE or go on to spillover
UF APPLICABLE] FRs. Relative to the energy efficiency of MEASURE-TYPE-# installed through
the program, how would you characterize the efficiency of equipment you would have installed
without tle program?
a. fust as efficient as installed with the program
b. Lower than installed through the program, but better than the standard efficiency
c. Standard efficiency
UF APPLICABLEI FR6. Would you have installed the same amount of MEASURE_TYPE_#?a. Yesb. No => FR6a
FR6a. More or less?
FR6b. How much more or less?
GO BACK TO L for next MEASURE-TYPE or go on to consistency or spillover...
Page B-8
NAvr cANT
Spilloaer
We recommend asking participants about both "like" and "unlike" spillover with an understanding that
the "like" spillover can by quantitatively assessed and the "unlike" spillover will be characterized
qualitatively (though efforts will be made to use deemed estimates if possible). With "like" spillover, we
can use the gross savings estimates from the program tracking database as a proxy for the "like"
equipment. With no savings data to use as comparisory our ability to confidently assign savings to
reported "unlike" spillover projects is limited by the amount of data participants are able to provide. For
example, if a participant reports that they installed "some high efficienry lighting" but cannot recall how
much or what type, we can only qualitatively report that project as spillover. However, if the participant
is able to provide detailed specifications about the project (e.g., 40 T8s with ballasts), we can then use
deemed savings values as a reference for assigning savings. Savings for measures without deemed
values (e.9., recommissioning projects, industrial process improvements) can only be verified via on-site
and our spillover assessments will be qualitative in nature.
We also recommend asking market allies about program-eligible sales outside of the programs. Market
ally responses and participant "unlike" spillover responses will allow a qualitative discussion about the
estimated magnitude of spillover relative to the "like" spillover that can be quantified. In additioru
interviews with market allies will provide.ul assessment of spillover across the entire program year. As
we are planning to interview participants quarterly regarding their projects, our estimates of participant-
reported spillover savings will under-represent annual savings as potential spillover projects completed
after that three month period will not be captured. However, market ally interviews will only be
conducted once per evaluation year and cover the entire program year/ capfuring all spillover projects in
the process. Likewisg the spillover reported by market allies will capture "unlike" spillover savings that
we were only able to qualitatively assess from the participant reports.
Similar to the free-ridership battery question wording will be adjusted for unique programs (e.g.,
recommissioning) or for custom projects. The like spillover questions will be repeated for the same two
measure types as used for the free-ridership battery, as applicable.
The participant spillover questions recommended as part of the participant surveys and interviews are
listed below for both like an unlike spillover.
LIKE
o Since participating in this program, have you purchased and installed any additional
Imeasures]?
o What did you purchase or install? How many did you purchase or install?
o Did you receive assistance from [utility] or another organization?
o On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you "strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you
"strongly agree" , please rate the following statement: My experience with futility)'s mergy
fficiency program influenced my decision to install other high fficiency equipment on my own.
. VVhy did you not apply for an incentive from [utility] for this equipment?
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-9
NAvr GA NT
UNLIKE
o Since participating in this program, have you purchased on installed any OTHER energy
efficiency improvements?
What did you purchase or install? (PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE)
How many did you purchase or install?
Did you receive assistance from [utility] or another organization?
I'm going to read a statement about the equipment that you purchased on your own. On a scale
from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you "strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you "strongly
agree" , please rate the following statement: My experience with lutilityl's energy efficiency program
influenced my decision to install other high efficimcy equipment on my own.
Why did you not apply for an incentive from [utility] for this equipment?
The non-participant spillover questions recommended as part of market ally interviews are listed below.
. Approximately what percent of all [measure] sales in [state] last year would you estimate was
from program-eligible equipment?
. Approximately what percent of your [measure] sales in [state] last year was from program-
eligible equipment, that is [description of eligibility requirements]?
o Did you sell more program-eligible equipment last year?
r According to our records, you sold [quantity] [measure] as part of projects that received
program incentives. To the best of your knowledge, did you complete any [measure] projects
with [utility] customers that did not receive program incentives? If so, how many?
o Do the lutilitvl Drosram incentives influence vour stockine/selline of orosram-elisible
[measures]?
. Does the [utility] program informatbl influence your stocking/selling of program-eligible
Imeasures]?
Net saoings
Spillover savings can be combined with free-ridership savings to create a comprehensive picture of
program influence. This combination is often referred to as a net-to-gross ratio and is calculated by
adding the spillover ratio to the inverse of the free-ridership ratio or:
Net-to-Gross Ratio = (1-Free-Ridership Ratio) + Spilloaer Ratio
Gross savings are then multiplied by the resulting ratio to find net savings by measure type and
proSram.
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-10
NAvI CANT
8.2
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Net Saoings Scoring - June 78, 2072
Shawn Grant, Esther Giezendanner, PacifiCorp
Kevin Cooney, Matt Haakenstad, Mike Yim, and Jeff Erickson, Navigan! Ellen
Steiner, Jess Chandler, and Jeremy Kraft, Energy Market Innovations, Inc
lrurrre'1.8,2012
Net Savings Scoring
This memorandum provides a detailed description of how the evaluation team plans to estimate a net-
to-gross (NTG) ratio for the portfolio of the PacifiCorp energy efficiency programs. An NTG ratio is a
comprehensive picture of program influence and is the ratio of net savings to gross savings and is an
indication of the programs' influence on customers' decision-making regarding energy efficiency at their
facility.
Ooentiew
Using self-reported responses, the evaluation team's estimation of net savings first attempts to assess the
program's influence on the participants' decision to implement an energy efficiency project and what
would have occurred absent the program's intervention. This estimation includes an examination of the
program's influence on three key characteristics of the project its timing, its level of efficiency, and its
scope (i.e., the size of the project). This estimate represents the amount of savings attributed to the
program that would have occurred without its intervention and is often referred to as "free-ridership."
The team's measurement of net savings then attempts to estimate program influence on the broader
market as a result of the indirect effects of the program's activities. This estimatg often referred to as
"spillolter," represents the amount of savings that occurred because of the program's intervention and
influence but that is not currently claimed by the program. Spillover savings can be broken into two
categories of savings: "participanfl' spillover and "non-participant" spillover. Participant spillover
savings occur directly (i.e., program participants install additional energy efficient equipment), while
non-participant spillover savings occur indirectly (i.e., market allies install additional energy efficient
equipment to customers that choose not to participate as a result of the program).
A prograrnls net savings are adjusted by both free-ridership and spillover savings at the measure level
and then extrapolated to the program. The net savings are the program-reported savings minus any free-
ridership savings plus any identified spillover savings, or:
Net Program Saaings -- Gross Program Saoings - Free-Ridership Saoings + Spilloou Saoings
Oftery this finding is described as a "net-to-gross ratio." This ratio is the net program savings divided by
the gross program savings, or:
Net-to-Gross Ratio: Net Program Saaings I Gross Program Sar,tings
F r e e -ri d u ship C al atl ati on
To determine free-ridership, the interview presents respondents with a series of questions regarding
their decision to install the equipment promoted by the program. The team then scores the responses to
these questions to determine the level of free-ridership. A score of 1.0 indicates the respondent is a
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho Inigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-1 1
NAVI CANT
complete free-rider; they would have installed the exact same equipment at the same time and in the
same quantity without the program's assistance. A score of 0.0 (zero) indicates the respondent is not a
free-rider; that is, without the program they either would not have installed any equipment within 12
months of when they did or they would have installed baseline efficient equipment.
As the first step in scoring, the evaluation team reviews the interview responses to determine if the exact
same project (in terms of scope and efficiency level) would have occurred at the same time without the
program. If so, the respondent is scored as a complete free-rider. If not, the evaluation team reviews the
responses to determine whether the project would have occurred at all within the same 12 month period.
If not, the respondent is scored as a non-free-rider. If the project would have occurred within the same 12
month period but altered in respect to its size or efficiency level, the respondent is scored as a partial
free-rider. To assess the level of partial free-ridership, the evaluation team uses the respondents'
estimates of the percentage of equipment that would have been installed within 12 months without the
program (the quantity score) and the percentage of the installed equipment that would have been high
efficiency equipment (the elficiency score)ll.If the project would have occurred with some changes absent
the program, the product of these two estimates is the initial free-ridership ratio or:
lnitial Free-Ridership Ratio = Quantig Score x Efficiency Score
After scoring the initial free-ridership ratio, a series of consistenry check questions is reviewed. These
questions ask about the influence of the program's interventions (e.g. financial incentives, technical
assistance) and address the counter-factual (e.g., what would have happened without the program). For
example, if the respondent states that the financial incentive was extremely important to their decision
(FR1D = 5) but that they would have installed the exact same equipment at the same time without the
program (FR2 = 1), the interviewer asks them to describe in their own words what impact the program
had on their decision (FR7). During the scoring process, these responses are reviewed by analysts to
determine which scenario is correct and are scored accordingly to create an adjusted free-ridership score.
Finally, the free-ridership score is adjusted to account for prior program participation. Given
PacifiCorp's efforts to cross-promote their entire portfolio of energy efficiency programs, a respondenfs
prior participation in a PacifiCorp program may have been influential in their decision to participate in
the current program.Ideally, this influence would be attributed to the prior program as spillover savings
since that program was responsible for the influence. However, given the portfolioJevel marketing
approach that PacifiCorp implements, respondents are unlikely to be able to identify the prior program
by name. Therefore, the evaluation team will attribute the savings credit to the current program.
To calculate this credit, the team will review the respondents' rating of the influence of the prior
program. If the respondent rates their previous participation as a "4" or "5," their adjusted free-ridership
is reduced by either 50 percent or 75 percent respectively.
11 Question text will be altered for projects where quantity is not applicable. For examplq if a project consisted of the
installation of an EM9 the quantity question would be skipped.
hnfidentialand Propietary Page B-12
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
NAvTGANT
Figure 4 illustrates the series of questions asked to support this calculation while Table 1 provides
detailed scoring and descriptions of each question.
bnfr denti al an d P ro gieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page &13
xAvrcANT
Table 1. Free-ridership Calculation
FRlB On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not important at all
and 5 being extremely important, how important were
the following factors in deciding which equipment to
install: information provided by PacifiCorp on energy
saving opportunities
On a scale from 1 to 5, with L being not important at all
and 5 being extremely important, how important were
the following factors in deciding whidt equipment to
install: the PacifiCorp incentive
FR2 Without the program, meaning without the financial
incentive and technical assistance, would you have still
installed the exact same [MEASURE] at the same time?
FR3 Without the program, would you have installed any
IMEASLJREI equipment?
FR4 Would you have installed this equipment within 12
months of when you did with the program?
FR5 Relative to the energy efficiency of [MEASLJRE]
installed through the program, how would you
characterize the efficiency of equipment you would
have installed without the program?
FRlD
FR6a
FR6b
FR7
FRlF
Would you have installed the same amount of
IMEASUREI?
Would you have installed more or less equipment?
Varies based on inconsistency identified
On a scale from 1 to 5, with L being not important at all
and 5 being extremely important how important were
the following factors in deciding which equipment to
install: previous participation with a PacifiCorp
Consistency Check
Consistency Check
If yes, free-ridership = 1
If no, free-ridership = 6
If no, free-ridership = 6
If high efficiency, efficiency
score = 1
If between high efficiency and
baseling efficiency score = 0.5
If baseline efficiency, efficiency
scole = 0
If yes, quantity score = 1
If less, quantity score =
percentage of equipment not
installed
If inconsistent, adjusted free-
ridership = 50o/o of initial free-
ridership
If FR1F = 5, reduce adjusted
free.ridershi p by 7 5"/.
If FR1F = 4, reduce adjusted
free-ridership by 50%
program
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Reporl
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-14
NAvTcANT
Figure 4. Free-ridership Calculation Approach
I ernoency score = o Itt
+
Standard
Yes
(e.9., HVAC)ln Between, DKI
Quantity Sco,B = FROb
Efficioncy Scor€ - 1
For example, a participant that installed four high efficienry HVAC units through the program reports
that, without the program, they would have not installed the same measures at the same time. Following
up, the respondent states they would have installed some equipment and it would have been installed
within 12 months. When probed about the level of efficienry of the equipment that would have been
installed absent the program, the participant reports that they would have installed equipment that was
more efficient than baseline but not as efficient as the program-eligible equipment. Finally, they report
they only would have installed one unit (instead of four). Using the scoring above, this participanfs
efficiency score would be set to 0.5 and the quantity score would be set to 0.25. Their initial, unadjusted
free-ridership score is then the productl2 of these two scores or 0.125. Likewise, they state that the
incentive was important and that previous participation was not important. These responses indicate a
consistent installation scenario and no further adjustment is necessary.
12 This multiplicative approach is appropriate as the score is the result of a product of the quantity installed and not
a product of probabilities (Keating. Free-Ridership Borscht: Don't Salt the Soup.IEPEC. 2009).
Confi d enti al and P ropi eta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-1 5
No, DKt
,/\,/ FR3 \
\erofaatyl,-No'\YYes
Same Level
NAvr cA NT
Spilloou Calanlation
P articip ant-rep ort e d Spill oo er
Similar to free-ridership, to determine spillover, the interviewer presents respondents with a series of
questions regarding their decision to implement projects outside of the program (i.e., projects that did
not receive any assistance from the program). These responses are then scored to determine the level of
spillover. The evaluation team will ask participants about both "like" and "unlike" spillover projects.
"Like" spillover is associated with equipment that is similar to the equipment incented by the program.
ln comparisory "unlike" spillover is associated with equipment that is not similar to the equipment that
was incented by the program. Using the program-reported per-unit savings as a proxy/ "like" spillover
savings can by quantitatively assessed. However, as it has no comparative program savings data,
"unlike" spillover can only be characterized qualitatively (though efforts will be made to use deemed
estimates if possible).
To assess "like" spillover, the evaluation team first reviews interview responses and determines whether
the respondent installed any additional equipment similar to what was incented through the program.If
additional equipment was installed, the team determines whether it was rebated through a PacifiCorp
program. If not, the team then estimates the amount of potential spillooer saaings associated with the
project. This estimation is created by using the program-tracking savings as a proxy for per-unit savings
and adjusting for the amount of equipment installed. The team will also adjust for equipment similar to
that installed through the program but of a lower efficiency. If the respondent states that efficiency level
is lower than what was installed through the program but better than standard efficiency, the potential
spillover savings are reduced by half. Since the energy savings associated with the reduced efficienry
project will be less than the project incented by the program, this adjustment credits the program with
some, but not all, of the savings.
In order to account for the program's influence on the spillover savings, the team then adjusts the
quantified spillover savings by the free-ridership rate identified earlier or:
Spillooer Saaings : Potential Spilloaer Saoings X Free-ridership Factor
As a consistency check, the team uses €u1 additional question to check the evaluated free-ridership rate.
Respondents are asked to rate the level of influence from the program on their decision to purchase the
additional equipment. The team compares these responses to the identified free-ridership rate to identify
any contradictory responses (i.e., free-ridership factor of 1.0 but spillover influence is high or free-
ridership factor of zero but spillover influence is low). If the responses are contradictory the potential
spillover savings are reduced by 50 percent. Without further evidence, the team cannot objectively
determine which statement of influence is correct. Adjusting the potential spillover savings by 50 percent
acknowledges this uncertainty without overly penalizing or rewarding the program.
Figure 5 illustrates the series of questions asked to support this calculation while Table 2 provides
detailed scoring and descriptions of each question.
Confidenti al an d P ro pi etary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page BJ 6
NAvr cANT
Since participating in this program/ have you purchased If nq potential spillover savings
on installed anv additional =0.
Relative to the energy efficiency of [MEASURE] installed
through the program, how would you characterize the
efficienry of this equipment?
If lower than program but
higher than standard, reduce
potential spillover savings by
half.
On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you Consistency Check
"strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you "strongly
agree", please rate the following statemenk My experience
with the PacifiCorp prograrn influenced my decision to install
this additionalhigh efficienat equipmmt on trul ourn.
C.a nfi de nti al an d P ro pi eta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
If standard efficiency, potential
Page B-'17
NAVICANT
Yes
A similar process is used for "unlike" spillover. However, since the measure is not the same as the in-
program measure, the team has less information from which to calculate the measure's savings. Thus the
team's ability to confidently assign savings to reported "unlike" spillover projects is limited by the
amount of data participants are able to provide about the measure and its use. For example, if a
participant reports that they installed "some high efficiency lightingl'but cannot recall how much or
what type/ we cannot reliable assign any spillover savings to that project. However, if the participant is
able to provide detailed specifications about the project (e.g., 40 T8s with ballasts), we can then use
values based on savings from similar measures in the program-tracking database as a reference for
assigning potential spillover savings. Savings for measures without deemed values (e.9.,
recommissioning projects, industrial process improvements) can only be verified via on-site and our
spillover assessments will be qualitative in nature. If "unlike" spillover projects of significant magnitude
are identified, on-site visits may be cost-effective. In this situatiory the team will discuss conducting
visits in order to quantify the savings.
Confidenti al an d P ro pieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
lover Calculation Approach
Pobntial Savings = Qty x Program-
r€portBd p€r-unit Savings
High Efficiency
No, DK
Spillover Savings = Pobntial
Spillover Savings x F €Fridcrship
Page B-1 8
xAvr cANT
N onp arti cip ant Spill oo er
To capture a comprehensive picture of spillover, the team also asks market allies about program-eligible
sales outside of the programs as part of our in-depth interviews with this group. By examining the
amount of program-eligible sales occurring outside of the program, the team can create high-level
estimates of nonparticipant spillover that can be added to the participant-reported spillover savings.
First the team determines whether the market ally installed any program-eligible equipment that did
not receive incentives from the program. If so, the team compares the quantity of equipment installed
outside of the program to the quantity tracked through the program-tracking database. Using the
savings associated with that market ally in the program-tracking database, the team can then estimate
the amount of savings installed outside of the program. Note that market allies may have difficultly
reporting the amount of equipment that did not receive program assistance. As these "don't know"
response will not be used in analysis, our estimate will likely be conservative.
Finally, the team determines the influence of the program on these sales in order to attribute the
nonparticipant spillover savings to the program. The team examines responses to three questions
regarding the influence of the program incentive and information on the stocking and selling of
program-eligible equipment. Respondents are asked to rate the influence of the program on a scale of 1
to 5 where L is "no influence" and 5 is "a gteat deal of influence." If the average response is greater than
4, 100 percent of the savings installed outside of the program are attributed to the program. If the
average response is greater than 3 but less than or equal to 4,75 percent of the savings are attributed to
the program. If the score is greater than 2 but less than or equal to 3, 50 percent of the savings are
attributed to the program. None of the savings associated with market allies with average influence
scores lower than 2 are attributed to the program.
Table 3 describes in detail the questions asked and their associated scoring.
Table 3.llover Calculation
21 According to our records, you sold [NUMBER OF
PROJECTSI of [TYPE] as part of projects that received
program incentives. To the best of your knowledge did
you complete any [TYPE] projects [IF LIGHTING OR
HVAC: that would have been eligible for the programl
that did not receive program incentives? If so, how
many?
22 Do the program incentives influence your selling of
program-eligible equipment for [TYPE]?
23 Do the program incentives influence your stocking of
program-eligible equipment for [TYPE]?
24 Does the program information influence your selling of
program-eligible equipment for [TYPE]?
Net-to-Gross Ratio
The evaluation team will determine measure-specific free-ridership and spillover rates. To determine
program-level rates, the team will weigh the rates by savings and for any disproportionate sampling.
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-1 9
(Projects outside of
program/Projects through
program) X program savings
associated with market ally =
potential nonparticipant
spillover
Average program influence
score
NAvI CANT
This weighting ensures that the analysis is representative of the overall program both in terms of its
distribution of savings and its mix of measures. For examplg projects that account for a larger
proportion of the program's overall savings will have ry influence on the final program-level rate. In
additiorU if projects that are part of certain sub-groups within a program are intentionally selected more
frequently (i.e., over-sampled) as part of the sample design those projects will have lq influence on the
program-level rate.
Likewise, the team will apply similar weights to the market-ally reported nonparticipant spillover
savings to determine measure-level estimates. To avoid double-counting participant-reported spillover
estimates will be subtracted from the market ally-reported estimates. If, at the measure level, the
participant-reported spillover estimate is less than the estimate reported by market allies, the team will
add the difference to the spillover rate. If the participant-reported estimate is greater than the estimate
identified by market allies, the team will not add any nonparticipant spillover savings to the overall
estimate.
The team will then create the final net-to-gross ratio. This ratio is the net program savings divided by the
gross program savings or:
Net-to-Gross Ratio = Net Program Saoings I Gross Program Saoings
The net program savings are the program-reported savings minus any free-ridership savings plus any
identified participant and nonparticipant spillover savings or:
Net Program Saoings: Gross Program Saoings - Free-Ridership Saaings + Participant Spillooer Saaings +
N onp articip ant Spilloo er S aoings
Note that as the nonparticipant spillover ratio is created for each market ally and not each participant,
the final ratio is adjusted at an aggregated level.
The final, weighted Net-to4ross Ratios for each Measure Group are provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Idaho IES Weighted Measure Group Net-to-Grces Ratios
Measure Grouo NTG
Redesign 0.927
Pivot/Linear Upgrade 0.570
Equipment Exchange o.572
Program Weighted o.745
hnfidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page B-20
xAvrcANT
Table 5. Measure Group Gross Energy Impacts for Idaho IES (2009-2011)
Pirot/Linear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
Sl6tem Redesigns
Program Total
?
?
?
7
4,353,019
r,5L1,982
2,994,897
8,859,898
4696
0%
2L%
88%
-3,075,729
0
5,051,593
1,994,954
-3,2s9,95s
-3,739,LO6
4,7gt,g4g
-2,217,2t3
-1,770,527
-3,739,106
5,797,ON
-26,.,707
-4,749,383
-3,739,106
3,766,6L5
-4,172,719
Table 5. Measure Grouo Evaluated Net Realization Rates for Idaho IES (2009-2011)
PiroVLinear Upgrade
Equipment Exchange
S)rstem Redesigns
Program Total
,
7
7
?
4363,019
L,sLL,982
2,994,897
8,859,898
46%
0%
2t%
88%
-2,29,.,288
0
3,769,M6
t,478,t58
-2,427,739
0
3,561,115
I,133,377
-1,31&s39 -3,536,939
00
4,3t7,t74 2,80s,0s6
2,998,636 -731,882
Table 7. Measure Level Low, and Evaluated
Drains
Gaskets
Nozzbs
Pressure Regulator
Sprinlder Paclage
System Redesigns
VFD
pereach 2,574
per each 48,739
per each 73,9M
per each 2,546
per acre 44b93
per each** t 6\
per fP
0.7yo
12.9v"
3.4%
3."1o/"
46.\o/"
27.6yo
lZVo
79lo
97%
t*3!o
ts3%
4504
44Y"
281"
249
-107
35
-59
67,993
281
w
.J
104
38
-38
97,742
xl
53
-21"1
-u
-1_82
-100
38,243
207
" Eaaluated results for Drains and Gaskets zeroed because the impact is minor relatioe to total use and is lost in the
noise of a billing analysis; an engineering analysis cannot be used due to a lack of baseline data; deemed saaings are
out of compliance.
"" Eualuated results for Nozzles and Pressure Regulators zeroed because results are not statistically different from
zero.
*** System Redesign results summarized on a per project basis; howeaer, the normalizing units used for the
analysis depends on the specific type of systetn redesign.
Conf i d enti al an d P ropri eta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page C-21
NAvTcANT
Cnnff d errti al and P ro p ida ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
PageC-22
xAvrcANT
Discount Rate
Inflation Rate
Commercial Line Loss
Industrial Line Loss
Commercial Retail
Rate
Industrial Retail Rate
Gross Customer Costs
Program Costs
Utility
Administrative
Program Delivery
Incentives Costs
7.4OY"
r.90%
70.7V/"
10.39%
$o.oz
$0.05
$1,563,756
$807,238
$225,338
$191,303
$3n,5y7
7.4fro/"
1..907"
9.33Vo
9.06%
$0.07
$0.0s
$561,830
$637,010
$198,337
fi787,749
$2il,924
7.77o/o
7.80Y"
9.33o/"
9.067"
$0.08
$0.06
$56,5,404
$4e0,981
$24,836
$247,2s5
fi224,890
7.32o/o
7.87"/"
9.78%
9.50o/o
s0.07
$0.0s
w,69[.,990
$1,935,229
M48"511
$620,307
$866A71,
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
7,984,8&
1,984,864
7,W,8U
1,984,8&
7,9134,864
7,478,758
'1,,478,758
7,478,758
1,479,1,58
7,479,159
$3,072,U0
$3,072,U0
$7,935,229
$2,956,M3
$2,6n,99o
$2,313,N2
$2,1.02,729
$2,102,729
$2,702,729
$2,237,L55
0.75
0.68
1.09
0.71.
0.83
Confi denti al an d P ropi eta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Table 8. Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation I
Table 9. Combined 2009 through 2011 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Page D-23
NAvICANT
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
987,552
981.,552
987,552
981.,552
987,552
7N,gn
730,977
73o,gn
730,977
73A,yn
fiL,58\,194
$1,,591,,194
$807,238
$1,474,808
$1,563,756
$7,573,137
$7,430,125
$7,43{].,125
$7,430,12s
07,297,ffi6
0.9
0.90
7.n
0.97
0.82
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
430,712
430,712
430,772
430,7t2
430,712
320,758
320,758
320,758
320,758
320,758
$804,489
$804,489
$637,010
$786,624
$561,830
$322,758
$293,416
$293A16
$293,41"6
M5'1.,825
0.4CI
0.36
0.46
0.37
0.80
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
572,600
572,600
572"ffi
572,600
572,fi0
42A424
426,424
426,424
426,424
426,424
$687,156
fi687,1.s6
$490,981
$694,611
$56s104
M77,107
$379,1.88
$379,188
$379,1.88
9,49fJ,324
0.6L
0.55
0.n
0.55
0.88
Confi de nti al an d P ro pri et a ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Table 10.2009 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Table 10.2010 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Table \1.2071 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
PageD-24
NAVICANT
Equipment
Exdunge
Total Resource Cost
Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost
Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test
(UCT)
Rate Impact Test
(RrM)
Participant Cost
Test (PCT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$229,474
$229,474
$257,56
$257,666
9726,172
$0
$0
$0
$0
9722,7@
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.97
Pivot/Linear
Upgrade
Total Resource Cost
Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost
Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test
(ucr)
Rate Impact Test
(RrM)
Participant Cost
Test (PCT)
-3,076,729
-3,076,729
-3,076,729
-3,076,729
1,076,729
429L,A$
-2,297,288
2291,,438
-2,291.,288
-2,291,288
$983462
$983,462
$6U,036
$112,6n
$96L549
(w7,n5)
($770,705)
($n0,705)
($770,705)
($332,678\
-0.86
-0.78
-'1,.22
-6.U
-0.35
System
Redesign
Total Resource Cost
Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost
Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test
(UCT)
Rate Impact Test
(RrM)
Participant Cost
TestPCT)
5,067,593
s,057,593
5,061,593
5,067,593
5,M7,593
3,769,4&
3,759,M6
3,769,U6
3,769,M6
3,769,4Q6
$1,859,904
$1,859,904
$7,043,527
$2,585,700
$1,,fi2,329
ffi,7(f.,777
$2,873,434
92,873,434
$2,873,434
$2,47,724
L.70
1..54
2.75
1.11
1.53
Confi d enti al and P ro pri eta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Table 12. Combined 2009 2011 Measure Level Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios
Page D-25
xAvrcANT
Sprinkler Package
Table 13. 2009-2011 Evaluated Benefit Cost Ratios Measure
TotalResource Cost Test (FIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility CostTest (UCQ
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
@,476,729t
(3,075,729)
(3,U76,729)
(3,076,729)
(3,076tr29)
(2291,288) $e78,763
(2,297,288) $978,763
@291,238) $su,sn
(2,297,288) $63,1.64
Q,291,288\ $v22,721
$u7,nq -0.e2
($770,705) -0.u
(wo,7os) -7.32
$no,70s) -L2.20
($3lz5oo) -0.38
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Pressure Regulator Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate ImPact Test (RIIO
Participant Cost Test (rcT)
$6/.,698
$64,698
$49,s13
M9,s13
w,4B
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,923
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
Gaskets
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM
Participant Cost Test (PCQ
$7il,724
$754,724
$|n,rc2
$ln,732
$99,133
$0
$0
$0
$0
$%,&34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
2753,N3 2,057,949
2,763,403 2,057,949
2,763,4W 2,057,949
2,763,403 2,057,949
2,763,48 2,057,949
$1,615395 4.10
$1,458,il2 3.72
$,4f,8,542 s.48
$7,468,542 1.38
$7,198413 3.47
$9q2!X
$394,256
$20,n4
fi7,062,993
f?[5205
Mzzles
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (I{Q
$43,3s4
$433U
$4ts40
$4ts40
$14"35s
$0
$0
$0
$0
s12,8n
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
Drains
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCI)
$31,3%
$37,395
$34,393
$34,393
trz524
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,398
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
Other System
Redesigns
Total Resource Cost Test (PIRC)
TotalResource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Particiant Cost Test (PCI)
1,631,,8D.
r,537,822
1,63't,8n
1.,63.1 ,822
L637,42
1275243 Wr,574
1.,2'1s,243 $561,674
1,215,243 $430,604
7,275,243 $934,733
r,27s,243 $A#79
91,034,9v7 1.84
$940,907 1.58
$9n,w7 2.79
$940,907 1.01
$7X,42. 2.47
Gravity System
Redesign
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (ItQ
ffi,x7
666,367
6fr.,X7
666,357
ffiw
496,2il $721,679
495,254 $721,679
496,2il $208,429
496,254 $457,253
496,2il $813,404
$s10"384 0.71
M53,985 0.64
$463,98s 2.23
$453,98s 1.03
$478,567 0.51
PumpUpgrade
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM
Participant Cost Test (I€T)
$r82,294
$782,294
$t%,7n
$136,720
$115341
$0
$0
$0
$0
w,322
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page D-26
NAVIGANT
Sprinkler Package
Table 14.2009-201.l Benefit Cost Ratios by Measure Type -Bound of Evaluated Savi
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (ItT)
(7,683,624)
(7,683,624)
(1,683,624)
(1,683,524)
(7,683,624)
(1,2s3,820\ $918,763
(7,253,820) $91,8,763
(7,2:i3,u0) $5U,522
(r,253,820) $2e9,229
(1,2s3,820) $922,121
($46,3,e13) -0.s0
(M21,739) -0.45
(w1,73e) -0.72
($D1,73e\ -7.47
($,0,fla1 -0.03
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Pressure Regulator Utility Cost Test (UCQ
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (rcT)
E7,311,
97,377
vl,3t1
97,311
y7,371
72,M9 W,698 622,837
72,459 $64,698 $20,761
72,49 $49,s13 $20,76L
72,469 $64,998 $20,767
72,469 $40,423 $3s,716
0.35
0.32
0.u2
0.32
0.88
Gaskets
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
(74,3s2) (107,s01) $7il,724
(rA,3s2) (102s01) $1s4,724
$e,3s2) (102501) $1n,n2
(144,3s2) (102s01) $1sa530
(74J,3s2) (107"501) $99,133
(w,378) 4.27
($38,s25) -0.25
($3&s25) 4.22
($38,s2s) -0.25
$63,128 0.&
VFD
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility CostTest (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
2,753,403 2,057,949 $394,2fi
2,753,403 2,057,949 $394,256
L753A03 2,0s7,949 $267,n4
2,753,403 2,057,949 $r,062,993
2,763,403 2,057,949 $345,20s
$7,675,395 4.10
$1,468,542 3.72
$t,48,542 5.48
$1,468,542 1.38
$1,198,413 3.47
Mzzles
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCQ
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCI)
2,479,t369 t,t36,7g7
2,479,869 7,U6,797
2479,&9 1,8M,79
2,479,869 1,U6,797
2"479,869 7,W,7E7
$691,18s 15.%
$528,350 14.49
$52&350 13.80
$628,3s0 1.34
$579,7il 4A39
$43,3r1
$43,354
$4s,s4I)
$457,703
$1435s
Drains
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
TotalResource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
7,743,n0
1,1.43,770
7,743,n0
.1 ,1.43,n0
\74t,no
857,7&3 $31"396
851,783 $31,395
851,783 $34,393
851,,783 $233,263
857,783 $72,A4
$335,732 70.69
$305,211 9.72
$301211 8.87
$305,211 1.31
wg,w 22.74
Other System
Redesigns
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
2,3$,878 7,7M,%7 W1,674
2,34s,81,8 1,,745,967 $561,674
2,345,818 1,746,967 $430,604
2,345,878 7,746,957 $1,155,313
2,34s,8r8 ],7&,967 $32t3379
$1,4t128s5 2.6s
$1,3s2,596 2.41
9r,s52,s96 3.14
$7,352,596 7.77
$1,085,51s 3.31
Gravity System
Redesign
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility CostTest (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM
Participant Cost Test (PCQ
836,247
836,247
836,247
836,247
836247
622,76 $721,679
622,756 $727,679
622,766 $20E.,429
622,766 $s13,1s8
622,76 $813404
w0a98
$s82,271
$fi2,/77
$582,271
w7,6y2
0.89
0.81
2.79
1.13
0.62
PumpUpgrade
TotalResource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (FCQ
L00.,737
700,737
L0p.,737
700,737
tm.,737
7s,o76 $182,294
7s,01.6 $182,294
7s,076 $136,720
75,076 $767,W
75,076 $115,341
$49,2t!6
$44,80s
$44,80s
$44,80s
$73,789
0.n
0.25
0.33
0.28
0.u
Confi dential and Proprietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
PageD-27
xAvrcANT
Sprinkler Package
Table 15. 2009-2011 Benefit Cost Ratios Measure T - Lower Bound of Evaluated Sav
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Pa*icipant Cost Test [rCT)
(4,469,e3q $328,7ss) 9918,763
(4,469,83s) (3,328,7ss) $918,763
(4,69,83s) (3,328,75s) $w,s22
(4,469,83s) (3,328,7ss) (9772,e01\
(4,#9,83s) (3,328,75s) W22,127
($r,231,$n -1.u
($7,179,6701 -7.22
($r,119,670) -1.v2
($1,119,670) 0.00
(w,s87) -0.72
Total Re source Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Pressure Regulator Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
(w,763)
(463,763)
(463163)
(463,763)
(63,763)
(34s,37t) $64,6%
(345,377) W,698
(34s,37t) ve,st3
(u5,371) ($24,28s)
{u5,371) E40,a8
($108,838) -1.68
(998,943) -1.53
($98,943) -2.00
($e8,e43) 0.00
($84173) -2.08
Gaslets
TotalResouce Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utlity CostTest (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Parthipant Cost Test (PCT)
$0,m,6/.8)
00,2n,648)
$0,m,6l,E)
00,2n,648)
Ql,m,&8)
{7,6s3,922) t7il,724
(7,6s3,922) 51s4,724
V,653,s2) fi7n;n2
(7,653,922) ($1,60e,.1e0)
(7,6s3,922) $99,733
(53,0r7,nq -19.s0
l$2,7 42,934) -77.73
(i2,742,er) -1s.43
($2,742,934) 0.00
(s2,303,039) -23.2s
Total Re souce Cost Test (FTRC)
TotalResource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (IjCT)
L763,N3
2,763,403
2,763,&3
2,763,403
2,763,N3
\67,949 fi3%,2s6
2,057,949 5394,256
\057,Et!9 $267,n4
2,057,949 61,062,993
2,W7,949 $345,205
$1,61t3% 4.10
$7,468,542 3.72
il,468,ilz s.48
$7,468,542 1.38
$1,198113 3.47
Irlozzles
TotalResource Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Ublity Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
(875,E72t
(815,872)
(875,872t
(815,872)
(81s,872)
(fi7,s%) $43"3s4
(6[7,s93) $43,3il
(fi7,s%) $45,540
(607,s93) (9e3,3s0)
(47,5%) S1435s
(92273e) -s.2s
($206,726) 4.n
$2M,n6) 4.il
($206,726) 0.00
(s173,6?s) -12.70
Total Re source Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
7%,43
736,43
736,023
736,023
L%,t23
L07,298 $31,3%
707,298 $37,396
t01,298 $34,393
707,298 $58,044
107,2% 912,624
$39,927
936,297
636,297
936,297
914,1!fi
7.27
1.16
1.06
0.63
3.50
Other System
Redesigns
Total Resource Cost Test (PIRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCD
Rate ImpactTest(RIM)
Participant Cost Test (PCT)
917,827
977,827
977,827
977,827
917,U7
683,s20 $!fr1,674
681s20 $s61,674
683,s20 $430,604
43,520 $714,7s4
83,520 $328379
$582,139
$s29,218
$s29,278
$s29,21.8
94%,229
1.04
0.94
7.23
0.74
1.51
Total Re source Cost Test (PTRC)
TotalResource Cost Test (TRC)
Gravitv Svstem
Redesign
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
496,88
496,488
496,488
496,488
496,88
%9;742
369,742
%9,742
369,742
%9,742
wr,679 $380,269
$727,679 $345,699
$28A29 8345,699
$389,349 9345,699
$813,()4 $335,443
0.53
0.48
1.66
0.89
0.41Pattipant Cost Test (PCT)
IjtmpUpgrade
Total Re source Cost Test (PTRC)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Rate Impact Test (RIM)
Partkipant Cost Test (PCI)
(660,22)
(660,222)
(ffi,222)
(660,222)
(ffi222)
Ggt,On $182,2e4
G91,6n) $182,294
G91,6m $r$,72o
(491,6n) $76,636)
$eL6m $115p41
($323,03s) -t.n
(s293,668) -7.61
($293,68) -2.15
($293,668) 0.00
($179,032) -l.ss
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix B - Net Savings Methodology
Page D-28
E.7 IES EEA Interuiew Guiile
Note: Potential respondents for the purposes of this interoisro are contractors in the kMP ltigation Energy
Efficiency Alliance who haae completed at least one Irrigation Energy Saoers project in ldaho between 2009 and
201L. Alliance aendors may be conducting equipmmt exchange and receioing direct reimbursement from kMP. A
census of omdors will be attempted.
Objectives
These interviews are designed to meet the following list of objectives.
> Understand how trade allies come to be involved in the program alliance;> Understand overall ally satisfaction with the program, including application materials, training,
roles, and communications;
> Characterize how they would improve the program for themselves and for customers;
" Characterize the value allies see in participating;
, Determine the level of program-like activity occurring without the program support (spillover).
This includes assessing how different program sales are from typical sales and how efficiency of
products is dranging.
" Understand what drives allies to stop participating or to not complete any projects.
> Determine if allies are receiving their incentives for equipment exchange in a manner consistent
with their needs?
Variables
Variable Description Type
$_CONTACT Name of contact Text
$_ALLY Business name Text
$_PACIFICORP Rocky Mountain Power Text
$_PROIECTS Completed projects 2009 -20L7 Number
$-STTB-TYPE Equipment Exchange, Pivot and Linear Text
$-ENROLL-DATE When they are listed as IEEA Date
$_2009_FLAG Flag for IEEA no longer active Binary
lnterview Guide
Hello, this is <INTERVIEWER NAMEZ from Energy Market Innovations. We are conducting an
independent evaluation of $-PACIFICORP's energy efficiency programs. This is not a sales call. May I
please speak with $-CONTACT.
I understand that $-FIRM is part of $-PACIFICORIys Irrigation Energy Efficienry Alliance. Your
feedback in can be used to improve Alliance support and the Irrigation Energy Savers proglam.
A1. Are you the person that works most closely with the Irrigation Energy Efficiency Alliance at your
company?
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1
a. Yes
b. No ) [ask to speak to person most familiar with the program]
I would like to discuss your experiences and perspectives regarding the Irrigation Energy Efficiency
Alliance. This interview will take 30-45 minutes, and as a thank you for taking time to chat with me, I
would like to give you a $50 gas card.
Is this a good time to talk or would you prefer to schedule a more convenient time?
[If no, scheduled callback time:]
With your permission, I'd like to record this interview to ensure that I don't miss any important notes
and for quality assurance. Your responses will be kept confidential.
42. In one or two sentences/ can you please tell me what $_FIRM does?
A3. What is your title/role at $_FIRM?
A3a. How long have you been in this position at your company?
1.1.2 Section 1: Participation
1. Our records show that your firm joined the Irrigation Energy Efficiency Alliance in
$_ENROLL_DATE? Is this your understanding as well?
2. How did you first hear about the program? (DO NOT READ, MARK ALL)
a. Advertising
b. RMP Representative
c. OtherContractor/Vendor
d. Customer
e. Other (SPECIFY
3. \4/hat motivated $_ALLY to participatei
4. Our records show that your firm facilitated $_PROJECTS $_SUB_TYPE projects from 2009 to
201,1.
a. How were you involved? (E.9. did they influence the project or just take orders)
5. [IF $-2009FLAG=U Our records show that $-FIRM did not facilitate any projects since 2009. Can
you describe the challenges that you face with the program?
a. Have you been involved with the program more recently, in2012?
b. UF YES TO Al What changed to allow you to participate in2012?
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-2
1.1.3 Section 2: Training Roles, and Communication
6. What kind of training or information about the program were you provided when you first
became involved? [MAY HAVE HAD INTERNAL TRAINING.]
a. Have you or someone at $_FIRM had any follow up or continuing training?
7. Did you feel like the program and your role were clearly explained?
8. How would you describe the quality of one-on-one communication with the program
representatives?
a. Is there one key contact you communicate with about the program? Who?
b. What might initiate contact;
i. Is there a set frequency of contact or an action that would trigger contact?
ii. Does he/she contact you or do you contact him/her?
c. How often is the contact?
i. Does this meet your needs?
d. How would you rate your satisfaction with your contact?
e. Is he/she able to answer your questions or get you to someone who can?
9. How do you prefer to get information about the program? (DO NOT READ, MARK ALL)
a. Online, check site often
b. Email
c. Mail Newsletter
d. Phone Call
1.1.4 Section 3: Marketing
10. Do you use the program as part of your marketing to potential customers?
a. [IF YES]how?
b. [2.d FOLLOW UP]Has it had any effect on your sales?
11. Did the program provide your firm with any marketing materials, such as brochures, flyers, or
forms to help promote and explain the program offerings?
a. Brochures
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-3
b. Forms
12. Is there anything you would change about the existing material?
a. If yes, what?
1.1.5 Section 4: Customer Involvement
L3. Is your interaction with customers that are participating in the program different than those that
are not part of the progtam? How?
a. [IF $_SUB_TYPE=PIV/LIN] As part of the program, customers are expected to work
with you to determine the appropriate new pivot and linear equipment to purchase. Is
this kind of consultation typical for all purchases?
UF $_SUB_TYPE=EQUIP EXCHI Have you had any difficulties filling out applications for
rebates for equipment exchanged through the program?
UF $_SUB_TYPE=PIV/LINI Are you able to help customers fill out applications for rebates for
equipment purchased through the program?
a. Any difficulties?
b. Do customers need assistance with the application? How much?
16. How do customers typically find out about the program? [INTERESTED IF CUSTOMERS
KNOW ABOUT TFIE PROGRAM AND BRING IDEA TO THE ALLY OR IF THE ALLY IS
ACTryELY SELLING/ADVERTISINGTHE PROGRAM; PROBE TO DETERMINE ONE OR THE
orHER.l
For the projects you completed between 2009 and 2011, about what percent started as
you contacting the customer to propose the project versus the customer contacting you
with a project in mind?
For those with a project in mind, about what percentage did you selVinstall as they
envisioned versus those where you suggested changes to increase the efficiency of the
project?
17. For each project that was completed from 2009 and 2011, about how many others started in but
were cancelled (i.e. not installed by anyone to the best of your knowledge)?
e. What do you see as the primary reasons these projects did not complete (TIE ANSWERS
TO BARRIERS LIST USED IN PARTICIPANT SURVEY: HIGH UPFRONT COSTS,
LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL, LONG PAYBACK PERIOD SLOW RATE OF
RETURN, LOW PRIORITY/LACK OF INTEREST OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN
ENERGY EFFICIENCY LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT SAVINGS AND
PERFORMANCE, LACK OF RESPONSIBLE/ACCOUNTABLE ENERGY STAFF)
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
L4.
15.
d.
Page E4
1.1.6
18.
hnfidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
19.
Section 5: Effects of the Program
[IF $-SUB-TYPE=EQUIP EXCH]Are the nozzles, drains and gaskets exchanged with the
program similar to equipment purchased by irrigators not involved with the program? (IF
NEEDED "UNDERSTANDABLY, THE EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS ARE LARGELY
FOCUSED ON WATER APPLICATION. ARE PROGRAM NOZZLES, DRAINS, AND GASKETS
SIMILAR TO EQUTPMENT PURCHASED BY IRRIGATORS NOT INVOLVED IN THE
PROGRAM?")
a. To the best of your knowledge did you complete any $_SUB_TYPE projects that would
have been eligible for the program in 2011 that did not receive program incentives?
b. [IF YES] Thinking of just 2011, about how many projects do you think would qualify?
[O& could you relate the volume of eligible equipment with the volume that you do
with the program?l
c. Why did customers not participate in the program?
[IF $_SUB_TYPE=PIV/LIN] Are the pressure regulators, low pressure drains, and sprinkler
packages for pivot and linear systems purchased with the program similar to equipment
purchased by irrigators not involved with the program? (IF NEEDED "UNDERSTANDABLY
THE EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS ARE LARGELY FOCUSED ON WATER APPLICATION.
ARE PROGRAM PIVOT AND LINEAR NOZZLES AND SYSTEMS SIMILAR TO OTHER NON-
PROGRAM PURCHASES?")
a. To the best of your knowledge, did you complete any $_SUB_TYPE projects that would
have been eligible for the program in 2011 that did not receive program incentives?
b. UF YESI Thinking of just 2011, about how many projects do you think would qualify?
[OIl, could you relate the volume of eligible equipment with the volume that you do
with the program?l
c. Why did customers not participate in the program?
Do the $_PACIFICORP program incentives influence your selling of program-eligible
equipment for irrigators [THIS QUESTION APPLIES TO SERVICES AS WELL AS WIDGETS; IT
IS A YES/NO, BUT INTERVIEWER SHOULD PROBE TO FIND OUT \MHAT THAT MEANS TO
THEM.I
a. UF YESI Please rate the influence on a scale of one to five, where one is no influence at
all and five is a driving force in your sales.
(IF APPLICABLE) Do the $_PACIFICORP program incentives influence your stocking of
program-eligible equipment for irrigators [THIS QUESTION APPLIES TO WIDGETS; IT IS A
YES/NO, BUT INTERVIEWER SHOULD PROBE TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT MEANS TO
THEM.I
a. UF YES] Please rate the influence on a scale of one to five, where one is no influence at
all and five is a driving force in your stocking practices.
Page E-5
20.
27.
22. Does the $_PACIFICORP program information influence your selling of program-eligible
equipment for irrigators [INTERVIEWER MAY NEED TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE
DISCUSSING IUST THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THEM; PERHAPS AT
WORKSHOPS/VVEBSITE/ETC.]
a. [IF YES] Please rate the influence on a scale of one to five, where one is no influence at
all and five is a driving force in your sales.
23. If the Irrigation Energy Savers did not exist, can you estimate how your sales of this efficient
irrigation equipment would be different? (PROBE FOR PERCENTAGE)
1.1.7 Section 6: Business Impact
24. Are there any other ways that participation in this program impacted your business, if at all? [IF
RESPONDENT ALREADY ANSWERED THIS IN SECTION 5, DON'T ASK AGAIN - looking
for qualitative here. Already asked them to rate.l
25. How does the program differ from other similar programs that you may be involved with at
other utilities? (BE SURE TO FOCUS PROBES ON: Is the amount of effort required on your part
different? What about the amount of paperwork? The program offer to participants?)
1.L.8 Section 8: Satisfaction with Program(s)
tNow, r HAVE IUST A FEW MORE QUESTTONS.I
25. On the wholg are you satisfied with your experience in the Energy Efficiency Alliance, on a
scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied?
27. Do you use the $_PACIFICORP vendor website?
a. [IF YES, follow up] How often do you visit the website?
b. [2"a follow up] IA/hat kind of information do you look for on the website?
c. UF NO] Did you know that upcoming events as well as archives of alliance newsletters
are available on the website?
i. How do you find out about events and newsletters?
28. \A/hen you joined the Irrigation Energy Efficiency Alliance, you signed a trade ally participation
agreement. Do you remember this agreement?
d. UF RECALLS AGREEMENTI Is there anything you would have liked to change about
this agreement?
29. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about your experience?
1.1.9 Section 9: Gas Card Offer/Closing
As a thank you for your participation in this interview, we'd like to offer you a $50 gas gift card. Would
you like to accept this offer?
(If yes) \zVhich type of gas station would be most convenient for you?
Confidenti al an d P ropieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E6
[NOTE: The following do not offer gift cards we can order: Loaf N']ug, Kum & Go
The following companies DO offer gas cards: Exxon-Mobil, Sinclair, Conoco, Pilot-FlyingJ,
Shell, Valero (Diamond Shamrock), Phillips 66, Chevron-Texaco, Maverikl
To what address should we mail the gift card?
Thank you!
C.2 IES Participant Suntey Instrament
Note: lrrigation Energy Saaers Participants are those customers who exchanged equipment, upgraded equipment,
or had any irrigation systun consultation through lrrigation Energy Saaers program during 2009-201.1. This
suft)ey is designed u:ith four distinct tracks, respondents are directed to the traclc by the logic at the beginning of
the section with priority in this order: System Analysis I Redesign, System Consultation, Piaot and Linear
Equipment Upgrades, and Equipment Exchange. lf a respondent participated in more than one track, the logic at
the beginning of the section of the first track that is appropriate for that respondent will let them know that the
suruey is only focusing on that part.
Objectives
These surveys are designed to meet the following list of objectives.o To describe how customers come to participate in the different aspects of the program. To understand overall customer satisfaction with the program, including satisfaction with
vendors (where applicable), equipment (where applicable), inspections (where applicable), and
reports and recommendations (where applicable)o To understand dealer influence on equipment exchanged and upgraded and participant
perspective of dealer knowledge about programo To understand program influence on customer actions, including free-ridership and spillovero To understand barriers customers are facing that prevent increasing energy efficiency
o To characterize participating firms
Variables
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-7
Variable Name Description Tvpe
&CONTACT Respondent name Text
&FIRM Companv name Text
&PROGRAM lrrieation Enersv Savers Text
&SITE Address Text
&YEAR Year of proiect completion YYYY
&PACIFICORP Rocky Mountain Power Text
&PART TYPE List of participation types (e.9.
Equipment Exchange, System
Consultation)
Text
&EOUIP EXCHANGE Participated in Equipment Exchanse BINARY
&PIVLIN_UPGRADE Participated in Pivot/Linear Upgrade BINARY
&PIVLIN EOUIP Equipment installed through program Text
&SYS CONSULT Participated in Svstem Consultation BINARY
&SYS REDESIGN Participated in System Redesign BINARY
&PUMP_TEST Had a pump test BINARY
&NOZZLE COUNT Count of. nozzles exchanged Numeric
&GASKET_COUNT Count of easkets exchansed Numeric
&DRAIN COUNT Count of drains exchanged Numeric
&VENDOR Vendor that completed the proiect Text
&POSTINSPECTDATE Date of post inspection MMYYYY
&INCENTIVE Amount of financial incentive Numeric
&MEASURECOST Amount of measure cost Numeric
&VFD Flae if measure was VFD BINARY
Survey lnstrument
I ntroduction and Screen
INTROI. Hello, this is INTERVIEWER. calling on behalf of &PACIFICORP. We are conducting an
independent evaluation of &PACIFICORP's Irrigation Energy Savers program. This is not a sales call.
May I please speak with &CONTACT?
1. YES, THATIS ME ) SKIP TO INTRO3
2. YES, LET ME TRANSFER YOU
3. NOT NOW ) SCHEDULE APPT AND CALL BACK
4. NO/REFUSED ) TERMINATE
INTRO2. Hello, this is INTERVIEWER. calling on behalf of &PACIFICORP. We are conducting an
independent evaluation of &PACIFICORP's Irrigation Energy Savers program. This is not a sales call
and would appreciate your input."
I'd like to let you know that this call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes. Also,
all of your responses will be kept confidential and will not be revealed to anyone outside of the research
team. Do you have a few minutes to answer questions about your experience with the program? [IF
NEEDED, READ: "This survey is for research purposes only and will take about 15 minutes."I
L. YES ) SKIP TO IS2
2, NOT NOW ) MAKE APPT. TO CALL BACK
3. NOIREFUSED ) TERMINATE
INTRO3. I'd like to let you know that this call may be monitored or recorded for quality insurance
purposes. Also, all of your responses will be kept confidential and will not be revealed to anyone outside
of the research team. Do you have a few minutes to answer questions about your experience with the
program? [IF NEEDED, READ: "This suryey is for research purposes only and will take about 15
minutes."l
4. YES
5. NOT NOW ) MAKE APPT. TO CALL BACK
C,onfi dential an d P ro pieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E{
6. NOIREFUSED ) TERMINATE
[IF VERIFICATION IS NEEDED, TELL THEM THEY CAN CALL SHAWN GRANT AT 801-220.
41e61.
IS2a. &PACIFICORP records indicate that your firm participated in the &PROGRAM program in
&YEAR through &PART_TYPE at &SITE, is this correct?
1. YES ) SKIP TO SRl
2. Nq DID NOT PARTICIPATE
3. Nq ONE OR MORE SUBPROGRAMSARE INCORRECT ) SKIP TO IS2d
4, NO, ADDRESS IS INCORRECT ) SKIP TO IS2C
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
IS2b. Is there someone else that might be familiar with this project?
1.. Yes
2. No ) TERMINATE
88. Don't know ) TERMINATE
IS2c. May I speak with that person?
1.. Yes ) RETURN TO INTRO2
2. Notnow) SCHEDULE CALLBACK
3. No ) TERMINATE
IS2d. What activities did you participate in with the &PROGRAM?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE and update &EQUIP_EXCHANGE, &PMIN_UPGRADE,
&SYS-CONSULT, &SYS-REDESIGNI ) SKIP TO SRl
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE) SKIP TO SRl
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO SRl
IS2e. What is the correct address?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE] ) SKIP TO SR1
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE ) SKIPTO SRI.
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO SRl
Sysfem Analysis & Redesrgn
lif &SYS_REDESIGN=0, skip to next sectionl
tif &SYS-CONSULT=1 OR &PIVLIN-UPGRADE=1 OR &EQUIP-EXHANGE=1, read "For this
survey/ we would like to focus on just the customized system analysis that you had through the
program."]
SRl. How did you first become aware of the opportunity to have a customized irrigation system
analysis through the &PROGRAM program? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES; ALLOW MULTIPLE
RESPONSES]
1., ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER &PACIFICORP STAFF
2, &PACIFICORP RADIO ADVERTISEMENT
3. &PACIFICORPPRINTADVERTISEMENT
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-9
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1L.
12.
13.
14.
15.
88.
99.
&PACIFICORP PRINTED MATERIALS/BROCHURE
&PACIFICORP ONLINE ADVERTISEMENT
&PACIFICORP TV ADVERTISEMENT
&PACIFICORP NEWSLETTER
&PACIFICORP WEBSITE
PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN &PACIFICORP PROGRAMS
CONFERENCE, WORKSHOB OR EVENT [SPECIFY:_]
&PACIFTCORP SPONSORED ENERGY AUDIT OR TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
FROM TRADE ALLY VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR
ANOTHER BUSINESS COLLEAGUE
FAMILY, FRIEND, OR NEIGHBOR
OTHER [SPECIFYI:
DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
REFUSE
SR2. When you started the process to do a customized system analysis, was it because you were adding
capacity, changing water source, planning to replace all or part of your system, or something else?
1.. ADDING CAPACITY
2. CHANGING WATER SOURCE
3. REPLACEALLORPARTOFSYSTEM
4. SOMETHTNG ELSE (SPECTFY)
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
SR3. Why did you decide to do a customized system analysis with &PACIFICORP? DO NOT READ
RESPONSES; ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSESI
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
1 1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'T KNOWI{OT SURE
99. REFUSE
[IF more than one response to SR3] SR3a. Of those reasons, which one was most influential in your
decision to participate in the program? [ALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSE]
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
Confi d enti al an d P ro pri etary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1 0
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
1 1.. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR4. A program representative came out to your facility to inspect existing equipment and determine
ways to improve your irrigation system. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where L indicates'very dissatisfied' and 5
indicates'very satisfied', how satisfied were you with the representative who came out to your facility?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED
4. SOMEWHATSATISFIED ) SKIPTO SR6
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO SR6
88. DON',T KNOW/I{OT SURE ) SKIP TO SR6
99.REFUSED
'SKIPTOSR6
SRs. \iVhy were you less than satisfied with the representative?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR6. As part of the progtam, you received a report documenting the findings from the energy analysis
that included recommended equipment and changes to improve the efficiency of your irrigation system.
Did you find this report valuable?
1. YES
2. NO
3. DO NOT RECALL REPORT ) SKIP TO SRll
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR7. Did you receive the report in time to inforn your decisions?
1. YES ) SKIP TO SR8
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ' SKIP TO SR8
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOSRs
SR7a. Can you describe what happened?
Confi dential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1 1
1.. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SRS.Were there recommendations in the report that you decided not to install?
1". YES
2, NO ) SKIPTO SRll
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE ) SKIPTO SRll
gg.REFUSED ) SKIPTOSRll
SR9. What were they?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR10. \AIhy did you decide against the recommendation(s)?
1,, IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SRl1. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates 'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates 'very satisfied', overall,
how satisfied were you with the performance of the redesigned system?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED
4. SOMEWHATSATISFIED ) SKIPTO SR12
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO SR12
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
' SKIP TO SR12
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO SR12
SRllA. Why were you less than satisfied with the performance of the redesigned system?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOW/|.IOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR12. With the &PROGRAM program, &FIRM received a no-cost customized system analysis and
&INCENTIVE worth of financial incentives. As part of this program/ &FIRM installed
&INSTALLED_MEASURES.
On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not important at all and 5 being extremely important, how important
were the following factors in deciding which equipment to install.
A. RECOMMENDATION FROM CONTRACTOR OR VENDOR
B. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE &PACFICORP SYSTEM ANALYSIS ON POTENTIAL
SAVINGS
C. INFORMATION ON PAYBACK
D. THE &PACFICORPINCENTIVE
E. FAMILIARITY WITH THIS EQUIPMENT
F. PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION WITH A &PACIFICORP PROGRAM
hnfi denti al an d P ro pi eta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1 2
G. CORPORATE POLICY REGARDING ENERGY REDUCTION
SR13. Without the program, meaning without either the system analysis or the financial incentive,
would you have still installed the same equipment at the same time?
1. YES ) SKIP TO SR18a
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR14. Without the program, would you have installed any new equipment?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO SR18a
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
SR15. Would you have installed this equipment within 12 months of when you did with the program?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO SR18a
88. DON',TKNOWT{OTSURE ) SKIPTO SR18a
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO SR18a
[IF &VFD=0]SR16a. Relative to the energy efficiency of equipment installed through the program, how
would you characterize the efficiency of equipment you would have installed without the program?
1. Just as efficient as installed with the program
2. Lower than installed through the program, but better than the standard efficienry
3. Standard efficienry
[IF &VFD=l] SR16b. Would you still have installed variable frequency drives on your pumps without
the program?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO SR18a
88. DON'T KNOWA.IOT SURE ) SKIP TO SR18A
99. REFUSED t SKIP TO SRL8a
SR17a. Would you have installed the equipment to the same extent as you did with the program?
1.. YES
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR17b. Would you have installed more or less equipment?
1. MORE) How much more?
2. LESS) How much less?
88. DON'T KNOWAJOT SURE
99. REFUSED
IIF SR12D < 3 AND SR14 = 2l
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-13
SR18a. Previously, you said that the incentive was not important in your decision to redesign your
irrigation system. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have redesigned
your system. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on your
decision to redesign your system?
1. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
uF sR12D < 3 AND SRls = 2I
SR18b. Previously, you said that the incentive was not important in your decision to redesign your
irrigation system. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have redesigned
your system with 12 months of when you did. In your own words, can you please describe what impact
the program had on your decision to redesign your system?
1.. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
UF SR12D > 3 AND SR13 = 1l
SR18c. Previously, you said that the incentive was important in your decision to redesign your irrigation
system. However, you also said that without the program, you would have installed the exact same
equipment at the same time. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had
on your decision to redesign your system?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
IIF SR12B < 3 AND SR14 = 2I
SR19a. Previously, you said that the system analysis was not important in your decision to redesign
your irrigation system. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have
redesigned your system. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on
your decision to redesign your system?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
IIF SR12B < 3 AND SR15 =21
SR19b. Previously, you said that the system analysis was not important in your decision to redesign
your irrigation system. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have
redesigned your system with 12 months of when you did. In your own words, can you please describe
what impact the program had on your decision to redesign your system?
1. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWI{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
UF SR12B > 3 AND SR13 = 1l
SR19c. Previously, you said that the system analysis was important in your decision to redesign your
irrigation system. However, you also said that without the program, you would have installed the exact
Confi de nti al an d P ropiet a ry
ldaho lrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-14
same equipment at the same time. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program
had on your decision to redesign your system?
1. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR20. Since participating in this program/ have you conducted or contracted for additional system
analysis and redesign on the same irrigation system or another?
1. YES
2. NO
'SKIPTOPII.88. DON'T KNOWI{OT SURE ) SKIP TO PII.
99. REFUSED
'
SKIP TO PIl
SR2la. Was the scope of this analysis the about the same as the analysis completed with the
program?
1. YES
2. NO, MORE EXTENSIVE, LARGER SCOPE
3. NO, LESS EXTENSIVE, SMALLER SCOPE
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR21b. Did &PACIFICORP or another organization cover the cost of the analyis?
1. YES
2. NO )SKIPTOSR2Ie
88. DON',TKNOWT{OTSURE ) SKIPTO SR2Lf
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO SR21.f
SR2Ld. What program or sponsor covered the cost?
1. &PACIFICORP' SKIPTO SR21f
2. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON',T KNOWA{OT SURE ) SKrp rO SR2lf
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO SR21f
SR21e. Why did you not apply for assistance from &PACIFICORP for this additional analysis?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SR21f. I'm going to read a statement about the equipment that you purchased on your own. On a scale
from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you "strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you "strongly agree",
please rate the following statement:
My experience with SPACIFICORP's &PROGRAM program influenced my decision to conduct additional
system analysis and redesign on my own.
Would you say you...[READ 1-5]
1. STRONGLY DISAGREE, SKIP TO PIl
2. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE) SKIP TO PIl
3. NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE ) SKIP TO PIl
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1 5
4. SOMEWHATAGREE) SKIPTO PIl
5. STRONGLY AGREE) SKIP TO PIl
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE) SKIP TO PIl
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO PIl
Sysfem Consultation and Pump Tesf
Iif &SYS_CONSULT{, skip to next sectionl
lif &PMIN_UPGRADE=1 OR &EQUIP_EXHANGE=1, read "For this survey, we would like to focus
on iust the System Consultation that you had through the program."l
SCl.. How did you first become aware of the opportunity to have a customized irrigation system
analysis through the &PROGRAM program? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES; ALLOW MULTIPLE
RESPONSES]
1. ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER &PACIFICORP STAFF
2, &PACIFICORP RADIOADVERTISEMENT
3. &PACIFICORPPRINTADVERTISEMENT
4, &PACIFICORP PRINTED MATERIALSIBROCHURE
5. &PACIFICORPONLINEADVERTISEMENT
6, &PACIFICORP TV ADVERTISEMENT
7. &PACIFICORPNEWSLETTER
8. &PACIFICORPWEBSITE
9. PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN &PACIFICORP PROGRAMS
10. CONFERENCE, WORKSHOP, OR EVENT [SpECIFy:_]
11. &PACIFICORP SPONSORED ENERGY AUDIT OR TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
12. FROM TRADE ALLY VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR
13. ANOTHER BUSINESS COLLEAGUE
14. FAMILY, FRIEND ORNEIGHBOR
15. OTHER [SPECIFY]:
89. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
SC2.Ia/hy did you decide to do a customized system analysis with &PACIFICORP? IDO NOT READ
RESPONSES; ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSESI
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
11. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
L2. Recommended by colleague
L3. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
hnfi d enti al an d P ro pi etary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1 6
99. REFUSE
[IF more than one response to SC2] SC2a. Of those reasons, which one was most influential in your
decision to participate in the program? TALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSE.I
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
1 1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
L5. To save water
88. DON'T KNOMNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SC3. A representative came out to your facility to inspect existing equipment and determine ways to
improve your irrigation system. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates'very dissatisfied' and 5
indicates'very satisfied', how satisfied were you with the representative who came out to your facility?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED
4. SOMEUTHATSATISFIED ) SKIP TO SCs
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO SCs
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO SCs
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO SCs
SCa. Why were you less than satisfied with the representative?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SCS. After the inspectiory you received a report detailing recommendations to improve your system.
Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates 'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates 'very satisfied', how satisfied
were you with the report?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED
4. SOMEWHATSATISFIED ) SKIPTO SC7
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO SC7
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE ) SKIP TO SC7
99. REFUSED ' SKIP TO SC7
Confi d enti al and P ropietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-1 7
SC6. IA/hy were you less than satisfied with the report?
L. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SC7. What action did you take following the report? [ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
1. PUMP TEST t SKIP TO SCTa
2. SYSTEMANALYSIS ) SKIPTO SPl
3, NONE) SKIP TO SPl
4. Other [SPECIFY]:' SKIP TO SP1
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO SPl
gg.REFUSED )SKIPTOSPl
SC7a. What action did you take following the pump test?
1. REPLACE OR REPAIR PUMP MOTORS) SKIP TO SPl
2. REPLACE OR REPAIR PUMP IMPELLER, SKIP TO SPl
3. REPLACE ORREPAIRPUMPBOWL ) SKIPTO SPl
4. PUMP ADJUSTMENT ) SKIP TO SPl
5. IMPELLERTRIMMING ) SKIP TO SPl
6, CHANGE TO VARIABLE SPEED/FREQUENCY DRIVE (VSD/VFD) SKIP TO SPl
7, SYSTEMANALYSIS ) SKIPTO SPl
8. NONE' SKIP TO SPl
9. Other [SPECIFY]:) SKIPTO SP1
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE) SKIP TO SP1
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO SPl
Pivot and Linear Upgrade
[if &PMIN_UPGRADE=0, skip to next section]
Iif &EQUIP_EXHANGE=1, read "For this survey/ we would like to focus on just the Pivot or Linear
Sprinkler Equipment that you upgraded through the program."l
PL1. How did you first become aware of incentives offered to upgrade pivot and linear equipment
through the &PROGRAM program? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES; ALLOW MULTIPLE
RESPONSES]
1.. ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER &PACIFICORP STAFF
2. &PACIFICORP RADIOADVERTISEMENT
3. &PACIFICORPPRINTADVERTISEMENT
4. &PACIFICORP PRINTED MATERIALS/BROCHURE
5. &PACIFICORPONLINEADVERTISEMENT
6. &PACIFICORP TV ADVERTISEMENT
7. &PACIFICORPNEWSLETTER
8. &PACIFICORP WEBSITE
9. PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN &PACIFICORP PROGRAMS
10. CONFERENCE, WORKSHOP, OR EVENT [SPECIFy:_]
11. &PACIFICORP SPONSORED ENERGY AUDIT OR TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
1.2. FROM TRADE ALLY, VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR
1.3. ANOTHER BUSINESS COLLEAGUE
Confi denti al a n d P ro prieta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Repoil
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-18
14. FAMILY FRIEND, OR NEIGHBOR
15. OTHER [SPECIFYI:
90. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
PL2. Why did you decide to upgrade your equipment with the program? IDO NOT READ
RESPONSES; ALLOW MUTTIPLE RESPONSESI
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
11. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSE
IIF more than one response to PL2]
PL2a. Of those reasons, which one was most influential in your decision to participate in the program?
IALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSEI
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
5. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
1 1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
1.2. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
PL3. Our records show that you worked with &VENDOR to purchase new equipment. Were they able to
answer all of your questions about the program?
Confidential and Propietary Page E-19
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
1. YES ) SKIP TO PLs
2. NO
88. DON',T KNOWr{OT SURE ) SKIP TO PLs
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO PLs
PL4. What could &VENDOR not explain or describe to your satisfaction?
1. IRECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
PLS. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where L indicates'very dissatisfied'and 5 indicates'very satisfied', overall,
how satisfied were you with the performance of the new &PIVLIN_EQUIP?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DTSSATISFIED ) SKIP TO PL7
4. SOMEWHATSATISFIED ) SKIPTO PL7
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TOPLT
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE ) SKIP TO PL7
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOPtT
PL5. Ia/hy were you less than satisfied with the performance of the &PIVLIN_EQUIP?
L. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
PL7. Is all of the equipment installed through the program in &YEAR still installed?
1. YES ) SKIP TO Pt8
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWA.IOTSURE ) SKIPTO PL8
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOPLS
PL7a. What has been removed?
1. Nozzles
2. Pressure regulators
3. Sprinklerpackages
4. OTFTER [RECORD RESPONSE ]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
PL7b. Why have they been removed?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEJ
88. DON'T KNOWA{OTSURE
99, REFUSED
PL8. With the &PROGRAM program, &FIRM received &INCENTIVE in financial incentives for
installing &PIVLIN_EQUIP.
Confi dential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Repo(
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-20
On a scale from L to 5, with 1 being not important at all and 5 being extremely importan! how important
were the following factors in deciding which equipment to install.
A. RECOMMENDATTON FROM CONTRACTOR OR VENDOR [if &VENDOR TSNOTNULL,
replace "Contractor or vendor" with &VENDOR]
-
INFORMATION ON ENERGY SAVINGS
INFORMATION ON WATER SAVINGS
&PACIFICORP INCENTTVE
FAMILIARITY WITH THIS EQUIPMENT
PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION WITH A &PACIFICORP PROGRAM
CORPORATE POLICY REGARDING ENERGY REDUCTION
PL9. Without the program, meaning without the financial incentive, would you have still installed the
exact same &PIVLIN_EQUIP at the same time?
1. YES ) Pt15
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
PL10. Without the program, would you have installed any &PIVLIN_EQUIP?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO PL15
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
PLLL. Would you have installed this equipment within 12 months of when you did with the program?
1, YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO PL15
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE ) SKIPTO PL15
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO PL15
PL12. Relative to the energy efficiency of equipment installed through the program, how would you
characterize the efficiency of equipment you would have installed without the program?
1. fust as efficient as installed with the program
2. Lower than installed through the program, but better than the standard efficiency
3, Standard efficiency
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
PL13. Would you have installed the same amount of &PIVLIN_EQUIP?
1. YES ) SKIP TO PL15
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
PL14. Would you have installed more or less equipment?
1. MORE) How much more?
2. LESS) How much less?
Confidenti al an d Pro pieta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
B.
C.
D.
E,
F.
G.
PageE-21
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
lrF PL8D < 3 AND PL10= 2l
PL15a. Previously, you said that the financial incentive was not important in your decision to install the
equipment. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any
equipment. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on your decision
to install the equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
UF PLBD < 3 AND PL10 = 2l
PL15b. Previously, you said that financial incentive was not important in your decision to install the
equipment. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any
equipment with 12 months of when you did. In your own words, can you please describe what impact
the program had on your decision to install the equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
UF PL8D > 3 AND PL10 = 1l
PL15c. Previously, you said that the incentive was important in your decision to install the equipment.
However, you also said that without the program, you would have installed the exact same equipment
at the same time. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on your
decision to install the equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON',TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
PL16. Since participating in this program, have you purchased or installed any additional
&PTVLIN_EQUIP ?
1. YES
2. NO )SKIPTOPII
88. DON'TKNOWi{OTSURE , SKIPto PIl
99. REFUSED ) SKIP to PIl
PL16a. What did you purchase or install? (PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE)
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
Pt16b. How many did you purchase or install?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
PL16c. Did you receive assistance from &PACIFICORP or another organization?
Confidentialand Proprietary PageE-22
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
1. YES
2. NO t SKIP TO PL18e
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE ) SKIP TO PL18C
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO PL18e
Pt16d. \l/hat program or sponsor provided assistance?
1. &PACIFICORP
2. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
PL16e. I'm going to read a statement about the equipment that you purchased on your own. On a scale
from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you "strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you "strongly agree",
please rate the following statement:
My experience with €IPACIFICORP's &PROGR&I program influenced my decision to install other high efficiency
equipment onmy own.
Would you say you...[READ 1-5]
1. STRONGLY DISAGREE
2. SOMEWHATDISAGREE
3. NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE
4. SOMEWHAT AGREE
5. STRONGLYAGREE
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
IIF PL15d >1; ELSE SKIP TO PIll Pt18f. Why did you not apply for an incentive from &PACIFICORP
for this equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE] ) SKrP TO Prl
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE) SKIP TO PIl
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO PII.
Equipment Exchange
Iif &EQUIP_EXCHANGE{), skip to next sectionl
EXl. How did you first become aware of the opportunity to exchange wom equipment through the
&PROGRAM program? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES; ALTOW MULTIPLE RESPONSESI
1., ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER &PACIFICORP STAFF
2, &PACIFICORP RADIO ADVERTISEMENT
3. &PACIFICORPPRINTADVERTISEMENT
4. &PACIFICORP PRINTED MATERIALS/BROCHURE
5. &PACIFICORPONLINEADVERTISEMENT
6, &PACIFICORP TV ADVERTISEMENT
7. &PACIFICORP NEWSLETTER
8. &PACIFICORPWEBSITE
9. PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN &PACIFICORP PROGRAMS
10. CONFERENCE, WORKSHOP, OR EVENT [SPECIFY:_]
11. &PACIFICORP SPONSORED ENERGY AUDIT OR TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
1.2. FROM TRADE ALLY VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR
Confidential and Propietary Page E-23
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
13. ANOTHER BUSINESS COLLEAGUE
14. FAMILY, FRIEND, OR NEIGHBOR
1.5. OTHER ISPECIFY:
91. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
EX2. Why did you decide to exchange equipment with the program? tDO NOT READ RESPONSES;
AttOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
, 11. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
[IF more than one response to EX2]
EX2a. Of those reasons, which one was most influential in your decision to participate in the program?
IALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSEI
1.. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
l. 1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
L4. Other [SPECIFY]:
15. To save water
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
Confi denti al an d P ro pieta ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
PageE-24
EX3. Our records show that you exchanged equipment through &VENDOR. Were they able to answer
all of your questions about the program?
1. YES
'SKIPTOEXs2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE ' SKIP TO EXs
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO EXs
EX4. What could &VENDOR not explain or describe to your satisfaction?
I. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
lif &NOZZIE-COUNT>0, ELSE SKIP TO EX6] EXs. Our records show that you exchanged
&NOZZLE_COUNT nozzles; did you install all of the nozzles in &YEAR?
1. YES )SKIPTOEX5b
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWAIOTSURE ) SKIP TO EXsb
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO EXsb
EXSa. Why did you not install them the same year of exchange?
1. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EXsb. Are all of the nozzles still installed?
1.. YES ) SKIP TO EXsd
2. NO
88. DON',T KNOWr{OT SURE t SKIP TO EXSd
99. REFUSED' SKIPTO EXsd
EXSc. 14/hy have they been removed?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EXsd. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates 'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates'very satisfied', overall,
how satisfied were you with the performance of the new nozzles?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX6
4. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX6
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX6
88. DON'TKNOWATOTSURE ) SKIPTO EX6
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOEX6
EXSe. Why were you less than satisfied with the performance of the nozzles?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
hnfidential an d Pro piet a ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Repil
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-25
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
lif &DRAIN_COUNT{, ELSE SKIP TO EXZ EX6. Our records show that you exchanged
&DRAIN_COUNT drains; did you install all of the drains in &YEAR?
1. YES )SKIPTOEX6b
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWAJOTSURE ) SKIPTO EX6b
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO EXsb
EX6a. Why did you not install them the same year of exchange?
1. TRECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX6b. Are all of the drains still installed?
1. YES )SKIPTOEX6d
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWAIOTSURE ) SKIPTO EX6d
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO EX6d
EX6c. Why have they been removed?
1. IRECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX6d. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates'very satisfied', overall,
how satisfied were you with the performance of the new drains?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX7
4. SOMEWHATSATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX7
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX7
88. DON',T KNOWT{OT SURE t SKIP TO EX7
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOEXT
EX6e. Why were you less than satisfied with the performance of the drains?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
lif &GASKET-COUNT>0, ELSE SKIP TO EXSI EX7. Our records show that you exchanged
&GASKET_COUNT gaskets; did you install all of the gaskets in &YEAR?
1. YES ) SKIP TO EXTb
2. NO
88. DON',TKNOWA,TOTSURE ) SKIPTO EXTb
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO EXTb
Confidenti al an d P ro pietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-26
EX7a. Why did you not install them the same year of exchange?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX7b, Are all of the gaskets still installed?
1. YES ) SKIP TO EXTd
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE ) SKIP TO EXTd
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO EXTd
EX7c. Why have they been removed?
I, [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX7d. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates 'very satisfied', overall,
how satisfied were you with the performance of the new gaskets?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX8
4. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX8
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO EX8
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
' SKIP TO EX8
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOEXs
EX7e. Why were you less than satisfied with the performance of the gaskets?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX8. With the &PROGRAM program, &FIRM received &MEASURECOST worth of new lozzles,
gaskets, and/or drains at for free.
On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not important at all and 5 being extremely important, how important
were the following factors in deciding which equipment to install.
A. RECOMMENDATION FROM CONTRACTOR OR VENDOR [if &VENDOR TSNOTNULL,
replace "Contractor or vendor" with &VENDOR] _
B. INFORMATION ON ENERGY SAVINGS
C. INFORMATION ON WATER SAVINGS
D. FREE EQUIPMENT-
E. FAMILIARITY WITH THIS EQUIPMENT
F. PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION WITH A &PACIFICORP PROGRAM
G. CORPORATE POLICY REGARDING ENERY REDUCTION
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
PageE-27
lif &NOZZLE_COUNT{I EX9a. When answering these next questions, think specifically about
nozzles installed through the program. Without the program, meaning without equipment at no cost to
you, would you have still installed the exact same &NOZZLE_COUNT nozzles at the same time?
1. YES ) SKIP TO EX9g
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX9b. Without the program, would you have installed any nozzles?
1. YES
2, NO, SKIP TO 99
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX9c. Would you have installed these nozzles within 12 months of when you did with the program?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO EX9g
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE ) SKIP TO EX9g
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO EX9g
EX9d Relative to the flow rate of nozzles installed through the program, how would you characterize the
flow rate of nozzles you would have installed without the program? [size of nozzles affects flow rate, if
the respondent needs additional guidance, ask about water efficienry rather than energy efficiency]
1. The same as installed with the proglam
2. Higher flow rate than installed through the program, but using less water than standard
3. Standard flow rate
EX9e. Would you have installed the same amount &NOZZLE_COUNT, of.nozzles?
1. YES)EX9g
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
EX9f. Would you have installed more or less equipment?
1. MORET Howmuchmore?
2. LESS) How much less?
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
uF EXSD < 3 AND EX9b=2)
EX9g. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was not important in your decision to install the
nozzles. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any equipment.
In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on your decision to install the
equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-28
IIF EX8D < 3 AND EX9c = 2I
EX9h. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was not important in your decision to install the
nozzles. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any nozzles
with 12 months of when you did. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program
had on your decision to install the equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
IIF EXSD > 3 AND EX9b = 1l
EX9i. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was important in your decision to install the
nozzles. However, you also said that without the program, you would have installed the exact same
equipment at the same time. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had
on your decision to install the nozzles?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
[if &DRAIN_COUNT>0] EX10a. When answering these next questions, think specifically about drains
installed through the program. Without the program, meaning without equipment at no cost to you,
would you have still installed the exact same &DRAIN_COUNT drains at the same time?
1.. YES ) SKIP TO EXIOf
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX10b. Without the program, would you have installed any drains?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKrP TO EX10f
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX10c. Would you have installed these drains within 12 months of when you did with the program?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKrP TO EX10f
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE ) SKIP TO EXIOf
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO EXIOf
EX10d. Would you have installed the same amount, &DRAIN-COUNT, of drains?
1. YES) Exlof
2. NO
88. DON',T KNOWr{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX10e. Would you have installed more or less equipment?
1.. MORET How much more?
2. LESST How much less?
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
Confi denti al an d Pro prieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-29
99. REFUSED
IIF EX8D < 3 AND EX10b = 2I
EX10f. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was not important in your decision to install the
drains. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any equipment.
In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on your decision to install the
equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
UF EX8D < 3 AND EX10c = 2l
EX10g. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was not important in your decision to install the
drains. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any drains with
12 months of when you did. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had
on your decision to install the equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
UF EX8D > 3 AND EX10b = 1l
EX10h. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was important in your decision to install the
drains. However, you also said that without the program, you would have installed the exact same
equipment at the same time. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had
on your decision to install the drains?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
lif &GASKET-COUNT>0] EXlla. When answering these next questions, think specifically about
gaskets installed through the program. Without the program, meaning without equipment at no cost to
you, would you have still installed the exact same &GASKET_COUNT gaskets at the same time?
1. YES ) SKIP TO EXllg
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
Exllb. Without the progtam, would you have installed any gaskets?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO EXL1"g
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EXlI.c. Would you have installed these gaskets within 12 months of when you did with the program?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO EXllg
88. DON'TKNOWAIOTSURE ) SKIPTO EXllg
99. REFUSED, SKIP TO EXllg
hnfi denti al an d P ropieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-30
Exlld. Would you have installed the same amount &GASKET_COUNT, of gaskets?
1. YES ) EXllg
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EXlle. Would you have installed more or less equipment?
1. MORE) How much more?
2. LESS) How much less?
88. DON'T KNOWI{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
lrF EXSD < 3 AND EX11b = 2I
Exllf. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was not important in your decision to install the
gaskets. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any equipment.
In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had on your decision to install the
equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
IIF EX8D < 3 AND EXL1c = 2l
EXllg. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was not important in your decision to install the
gaskets. However, you also said that without the program, you would not have installed any gaskets
with 12 months of when you did. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program
had on your decision to install the equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
lrF EXSD > 3 AND EX11b = 1l
Exllh. Previously, you said that the no cost equipment was important in your decision to install the
gaskets. However, you also said that without the program, you would have installed the exact same
equipment at the same time. In your own words, can you please describe what impact the program had
on your decision to install the gaskets?
I. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EXl2. Since participating in this program, have you purchased or installed any additional efficient
nozzles, gaskets or drains?
1. YES
2. NO ' SKIP TO EX16
88. DON'T KNOWATOT SURE ) SKIP to EX16
99. REFUSED ) SKIP to EX16
Confi denti al an d P ro pietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-31
EX13. What did you purchase or install? (PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE)
1. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
8X14. How many did you purchase or install?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX15. Did you receive assistance from &PACIFICORP or another organization?
1. YES
2, NO )SKIPTOEXISC
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO EX15f
99. REFUSED ' SKIPTOEXI5f
EX15d. What program or sponsor provided assistance?
1. &PACIFICORP) SKIP TO EX15f
2. IRECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWA.IOT SURE , SKIP TO EX15f
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO Exlsf
EX15e. Why did you not apply for an incentive from &PACIFICORP for this equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EX15f. I'm going to read a statement about the equipment that you purchased on your own. On a scale
from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you "strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you "strongly agree",
please rate the following statement:
My experience with &PACIFICORP's APROGRAM program influenced my decision to install additional
fficient nozzles, gaskets or drains on my o'uJn.
Would you say you...[READ 1-5]
1. STRONGLYDISAGREE
2. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
3. NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE
4. SOMEWHAT AGREE
5. STRONGLYAGREE
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
Posf-Installation
lif &POSTINSPECTDATE{I PIl. After you installed the new equipment, a program representative
came out to your site to inspect the installatiory around &POSTINSPECTDATE. Do you recall this visit?
1. YES
2, NO ) SKIPTO SPl
Confid enti al an d P ropriet a ry
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-32
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE ) SKIP TO SPl
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO SPl
PI2. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates'very satisfied', overall,
how satisfied were you with the inspection?
1. VERY DISSATISFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ) SKIP TO SPl
4. SOMEWHATSATISFIED ) SKIPTO SPI.
5. VERY SATISFIED ) SKIP TO SPl
88. DON'TKNOWAIOTSURE ) SKIPTO SP1
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOSPl
P12a. Why were you less than satisfied with the inspection to verify your installation?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE] ) SKIPTO SPl
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE) SKIP TO SPl
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO SPl
Unlike Spillover
SPl. Since participating in this program/ have you purchased or installed any irrigation equipment that
would improve electric efficiency or water pumping efficiency, IIF PL16=1 OR EXL2=1, add "besides
what we already discussed."]?
1. YES
2, NO ) SKIP TO 81
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP to 81
99. REFUSED ) SKIP to 81
SP2a. What did you purchase or install? (PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE)
I. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SP2b. How many did you purchase or install?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
SP2c. Did you receive an incentive from &PACIFICORP or another organization?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO SP2e
88. DON',TKNOWT{OTSURE ) SKrprO Sp2f
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTO SP2f
SP2d. What program or sponsor provided an incentive?
I. &PACIFICORP) SKIP TO SP2f
2. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO SP2f
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO SP2f
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-33
SP2e. Why did you not apply for an incentive from &PACIFICORP for this equipment?
r. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWN]OT SURE
99. REFUSED
SP2f.I'm going to read a statement about the equipment that you purchased on your own. On a scale
from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that you "strongly disagree" and 5 indicating that you "strongly agree",
please rate the following statement:
My experience with APACIFICORP's APROGRAM program influenced my decision to install other high
fficiency equipment on my orrn.
Would you say you...[READ 1-5]
1. STRONGLY DISAGREE) SKIP TO 81
2. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE) SKIP TO 81
3. NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE ) SKIP TO 81
4. SOMEWHATAGREE) SKIPTO 81
5. STRONGLYAGREE) SKIPTO 81
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE) SKIPTO 81
99. REFUSED) SKIP TO 81.
Barriers
81. Do you think there are other changes that you could make to improve electric efficiency or water
pumping efficiency?
1. YES
2. NO )SKIPTOICI
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE ) SKIP TO ICl
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO ICl
B2. Could you provide some examples of changes you think would improve electric efficiency or water
pumping efficiency? [PROBE FOR ADDITIONAL]
I. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
83. Are plans in place to make any of those dranges?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO 85
88. DON'T KNOWI{OT SURE ' SKIP TO B5
99. REFUSED
'
SKIP TO 85
84. Are incentives from &PACIFICORP or another organization part of those plans?
t. No
2. YES
88. DON'TKNOWATOTSURE
99. REFUSED
Confidenti al a n d P ro pieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-34
85. \A/hat factors could prevent &FIRM from making these changes? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES;
ALLOW MUTTIPLE RESPONSES]
1.. HIGH UPFRONT COSTS
2. LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL
3. LONG PAYBACKPERIOD; SLOWRATE OF RETURN
4. LOW PRIORITY/LACK OF INTEREST OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
5. LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT SAVINGS AND PERFORMANCE
6. LACK OF RESPONSIBLE/ACCOUNTABLE ENERGY STAFF
7. OTHER (SPECTFY
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
[IF MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE TO 85] 86. \A/hich of these do you think is the most challenging
factor?
1. HIGH UPFRONT COSTS
2. LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL
3. LONG PAYBACK PERIOD; SLOW RATE OF RETURN
4, LOW PRIORITY/LACK OF INTEREST OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
5. LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT SAVINGS AND PERFORMANCE
6, LACK OF RESPONSMLE/ACCOUNTABLE ENERGY STAFF
7. OTHER (SPECIFY-)
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
Satisfaction
ICl. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 indicates'very dissatisfied' and 5 indicates'very satisfied', how
satisfied were you overall with the program?
1. VERY DISSATSIFIED
2. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
3. NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED
4. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ) SKIP TO IC2
5. VERY SATISFIED + SKIP TO IC2
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
' SKIP TO IC2
99. REFUSED , SKIP TO IC2
IC1A. Why were you less than satisfied with the program overall?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
lcz.If you could change anything about the &PROGRAM program, what would you change?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-35
99. REFUSED
IC3. During your involvement with &PROGRAM did you ever contact &PACIFICORP with questions or
requests for assistance?
1. YES
2, NO ) SKIP TO FBl
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO FBl
gg.REFUSED
'SKIPTOFBl
IC4. Were &PACIFICORP and its representatives timely in addressing your questions in regards to the
program?
1. YES
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
IC5. Were &PACIFICORP and its representatives knowledgeable in regards to the program and the
program eligibility requirements?
1. YES
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
Firmographics
FBl INTRO.
Now I have a few final, general questions about your company for comparison purposes only.
FBl. Approximately, what percent of your total annual operating costs does your water bill represent?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
FB2. Approximately, what percent of your total annual operating costs does your electricity bill
represent?
L. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
FB3. About how many people do you employ during the growing season?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
End
ENDI. Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Is there anything about your experiences with
&PACIFICORP's &PROGRAM program you'd like to mention that we did not talk about today?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Repo(
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-36
99. REFUSED
ITHANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE SURVEY]
C.3 IES Non-Pafiicipant Suntey Instrament
Note: Non-participants are C&l customers who are not identifud as haoing started participating in any
PacifiCorp programs befween 2009 and 20L1..
Objectives
These surveys are designed to meet the following list of objectives.
o To assess awareness of PacifiCorp programs among non-participantso To identify non-participant efficient purchasing
o To understand barriers customers are facing that prevent increasing energy efficiencyo To characterize non-participant firms
Variables
Survey lnstrument
lntroduction and Screen
INTROI. Hello, this is INTERVIEWER. calling on behalf of &PACIFICORP. We are conducting an
independent evaluation of &PACIFICORP's energy efficienry programs so that they better suit the needs
of customers like you. This is not a sales call. May I please speak with the person who is responsible for
the $_CLASS electric account for $_FIRM?
1. YES, THAT IS ME ) SKIP TO INTRO3
2. YES, LET ME TRANSFER YOU
3. NOT NOW ) SCHEDULE APPT AND CALL BACK
4. NO/REFUSED ) TERMINATE
INTRO2. Hello, this is INTERVIEWER. calling on behalf of &PACIFICORP. We are conducting an
independent evaluation of &PACIFICORP's efficiency programs so that they better suit the needs of
customers like you. This is not a sales call. Do you have a few minutes? [IF NEEDED, READ: "This
survey is for research purposes only and will take about 10 minutes."I
7. YES ) SKIP TO IS2a
8. NOT NOW ) MAKE APPT. TO CALL BACK
9. NO/REFUSED ) TERMINATE
C,onfi d enti a I a n d P ro p i eta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-37
Variable Name Description Tvpe
&FIRM Companv name Text
&PHONE Phone number Numeric
&SITE Address Text
&PACIFICORP Rocky Mountain Power, Pacific Power Text
&CLASS Revenue Class Text
INTRO3. Great. I'd like to let you know that this call may be monitored or recorded for quality
assurance purposes. Also, all of your responses will be kept confidential and will not be revealed to
anyone outside of the research team.
[IF NEEDED, READ: "This suryey is for research purposes only and will take about 10 minutes."]
1., CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW
2, NOTNOW ) MAKE APPT. TO CAIL BACK
3. NOIREFUSED ) TERMINATE
[IF VERIFICATION IS NEEDED, TELL THEM THEY CAN CALL SHAWN GRANT AT 801.220-
41e61.
Vl. First, I'd like to verify my records. Which utility company provides electricity at &SITE?
1. &PACIFICORP
2, OT}IER + TERMINATE
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
UF &_CLASS "COMMERCIAL" OR "INDUSTRIAL"IV2. Was this facility at &SITE constructed before or
after 2009?
1. BEFORE2OO9
2. 2OO9 OR LATER
Awareness
A1. Are you aware that &PACIFICORP offers incentives and technical assistance to &CLASS customers
to help them reduce electricity usage?
1-. YES
2. NO )SKIPIoA4
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO A4
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO A4
A2. How did you become aware that &PACIFICORP offers energy efficiency program(s)? [DO NOT
READ RESPONSES, SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
16. ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER &PACIFICORP STAFF
1.7. &PACIFICORP RADIO ADVERTISEMENT
18. &PACIFICORP PRINT ADVERTISEMENT
19. &PACIFICORP PRINTED MATERIALSEROCHURE
20. &PACIFICORP ONLINE ADVERTISEMENT
21. &PACIFICORP TV ADVERTISEMENT
22. &PACIFICORP NEWSLETTER
23. &PACIFICORP WEBSITE
24. PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN &PACIFICORP PROGRAMS
2s. CONFERENCE, WORKSHOP, OR EVENT [SPECIFy:_]
26. &PACIFICORP SPONSORED ENERGY ATIDIT OR TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
27. FROM TRADE ALLY VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR
28. ANOTHER BUSINESS COLLEAGUE
29. FAMILY FRIEND ORNEIGHBOR
Confidential and Propietary Page E-38
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
30. OTHER [SPECIFY]:
92. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSE
A3. Which programs or services can you think of that &PACIFICORP offers to &CLASS customers? [DO
NOT READ RESPONSES, SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
1. ENERGY FINANSWER
2. FINANSWEREXPRESS
3. SELF-DIRECTION CREDIT
4. RECOMMISSIONING
5, IRRIGATION LOAD CONTROL
6, IRRIGATION ENERGYSAVERS
7. INCENTIVES FOR EFFICIENT EQUIPMENT
8. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/ ENERGY ANALYSIS
9. DEMAND RESPONSE / LOAD CONTROL
10. Other [SPECIFY]:
88. DON'T KNOWA.IOT SURE
99. REFUSED
A4. In the future, what is the best for &PACFICORP to keep you informed about programs they offer
that could help your firm save energy?
1. ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER &PACIFICORP STAFF
2. RADIOADVERTISEMENT
3. PRINTADVERTISEMENT
4. PRINTEDMATERIALS/BROCHURE
5. ONLINEADVERTISEMENT
6. TV ADVERTISEMENT
7. NEWSLETTER
8. WEBSITE
9. CONFERENCE, WORKSHOR OR EVENT [SPECIFY:-]
10. TRADE ALLY, VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR
11. OTHER [SPECIFY]:
93. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSE
Energy Efficient Actions by Non-Participants
ITFV}-2, SKIP TO EE21I
EEl. Between 2009 and 201L, did you have a systematic evaluation or audit of your facility, at &SITE, to
identify and implement operational improvements? [IF NEEDED: "this includes building and
equipment audits, system analyses, energy engineering analysis, other detailed studies."]
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO EE8
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE ) SKIP TO EE8
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTOEES
EE2. What factor or factors motivated you to have your facility undergo a systematic evaluation? IDO
NOT READ RESPONSES; ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSESI
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
Confi d enti al and P ropieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E-39
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
L0. To save energy
1.1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
L4. To improve operations, productiory or quality
15. To improve value of property
16. To improve comfort
1.7. Other [SPECIFY]:
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE3. Did you receive assistance from &PACIFICORP or another organization? [IF NEEDED: assistance
may include technical assistance or incentives]
1-. YES
2. NO )SKIPTOEEs
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO EEs
99.REFUSED )SKIPTOEEs
EE4. IA/hat program or sponsor provided assistance?
3. &PACIFICORP ) SKIP TO EE8
4. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON',T KNOWi{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EEs. \Alhat opportunities for improvement were identified? [PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS
POSSTBLEI
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWA\fOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE6. What actions have you taken as a result of the study?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWA.IOT SURE
99. REFUSED
[IF EE4 not 1]EE7. Why did you not apply for assistance from &PACIFICORP?
t. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWA,IOT SURE
99. REFUSED
Confide nti al a n d P roprieta ry
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E40
EE8a. Did you install any high efficiency equipment at this site between 2009 Nrd201.1?
1. YES
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE8b. Did you make any improvements to this site between 2009 and 2011 to help conserve energy?
1. YES
2. NO
88. DON'TKNOMT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
[IF EE8a * 1 and EE8b + 1, SKIP TO EE15]
EE9. What did you install? (PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE)
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWA{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
EE10. How many did you purchase or install?
I. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE1.1.. What factor or factors motivated you to make these changes? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES;
ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
1 1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. To improve operations, productiory or quality
15. To improve value of property
L6. To improve comfort
17. Other [SPECIFY]:
88. DON'T KNOWI{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE12. Did you receive assistance from &PACIFICORP or another organization?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO EE14
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E41
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE ) SKIP TO EE14
99. REFUSED
'
SKIP TO EE14
EE13. What program or sponsor provided assistance?
5. &PACIFICORP ) SKIP TO EE15
6. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE14. Why did you not apply for an incentive from &PACIFICORP for this equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
E815. Since 2009, have you implemented any load control strategies at your facility?
1. YES
2. NO ' SKIP TO 81
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO 81
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO 81
EE15. 14/hat strategies have you implemented?
I. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
EE17. What factor or factors motivated you to make these changes? IDO NOT READ RESPONSES;
ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
L0. To save energy
1 1. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
13. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. To improve operations, production, or quality
15. To improve value of property
15. To improve comfort
17. Other [SPECIFY]:
88. DON'T KNOWATOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE18. Did you receive assistance from &PACIFICORP or another organization?
Confidential and Proprietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
PageE42
1, YES
2. NO )SKIPTOEE2O
88. DON'TKNOWAIOTSURE ) SKIPTO EE2O
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTOEE2O
EE19. \tVhat program or sponsor provided assistance?
1. &PACIFICORP ' SKIPTO 81
2. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88, DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE20. Why did you not apply for an incentive from &PACIFICORP for these load control
improvements?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWNIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
[IF V2=2] EE21. When constructing this facility, did you install any high efficiency equipment?
1. YES
2, NO ) SKIP TO 81
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO 81
99. REFUSED ) SKIP TO 81
EE22. What high efficiency equipment did you install? (PROBE FOR AS MUCH DETAIL AS
POSSTBLE)
2. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON',T KNOWi{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE23. How many did you purchase or install?
1. IRECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
8E24. What factor or factors motivated you to make these changes? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES;
ATLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
1. To save money on electric bills.
2. To obtain an incentive.
3. To replace old or poorly working equipment.
4. To replace broken equipment.
5. To acquire the latest technology.
6. To reduce maintenance costs.
7. Because the program was sponsored by &PACIFICORP
8. Previous experience with &PACIFICORP
9. To protect the environment.
10. To save energy
11. Recommendation by contractors/trade allies
12. Recommended by colleague
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Reprt
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E43
L3. Recommended by family, friend or neighbor
14. To improve operations, productiory or quality
15. To improve value of property
16. To improve comfort
17. Other [SPECIFY]:
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
EE25. Did you receive assistance from &PACIFICORP or another organization?
1. YES
2, NO ) SKIP TO EE27
88. DON'T KNOWT{OT SURE ) SKIP TOEEZ7
99. REFUSED ) SKIPTOEE2T
EE25. What program or sponsor provided assistance?
7. &PACIFICORP ' SKIP TO 81
8. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
EE27.rNhy did you not apply for an incentive from &PACIFICORP for this equipment?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWAIOT SURE
99. REFUSED
Barriers
81. Do you think there are other changes that you could make to improve electric efficiency at &FIRM?
1.. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO FBl
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE ) SKIP TO FBl
99.REFUSED ) SKIPTOFBl
82. Could you provide some examples of what changes you think you could make?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
83. Are plans in place to make any of those changes?
1. YES
2. NO ) SKIP TO 85
88. DON'TKNOWA,IOTSURE ) SKIPTO 85
99.REFUSED )SKIPTO85
84. Are incentives from &PACIFICORP or another organization part of those plans?
1. YES
2. NO
88. DON'T KNOWA.IOT SURE
Confide nti al an d P roprietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E44
99. REFUSED
85. What factors could prevent &FIRM from making these changes? [DO NOT READ RESPONSES;
ALLOW MUTTIPLE RESPONSES]
8. HIGHUPFRONTCOSTS
9. LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL
10. LONG PAYBACK PERIOD; SLOW RATE OF RETURN
11. LOW PRIORITY/LACK OF INTEREST OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
12. LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT SAVINGS AND PERFORMANCE
1.3. LACK OF RESPONSELE/ACCOUNTABLE ENERGY STAFF
L4. OTFTER (SPECTFY
88. DON'T KNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
IIF MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE TO 85] 85. Which of these do you think is the most challenging
factor?
8. HIGH UPFRONT COSTS
9. LACK OF ACCESS TO CAPITAL
10. LONG PAYBACKPERIOD; SLOWRATE OF RETURN
11. LOW PRIORITY/LACK OF INTEREST OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
12. LACK OF INFOI(MA-TION ABOUT SAVINGS AND PERFORMANCE
13. LACK OF RESPONSIBLE/ACCOUNTABLE ENERGY STAFF
14. OTHER (SPECIFY-)
88. DON'TKNOWT{OTSURE
99. REFUSED
Firmographics
FBl. Now I have a few final, general questions about your company for comparison purposes only.
Could you describe your company's primary activities? (DO NOT READ LIST, CODE AND CONFIRIM
\^rITH RESPONDENT)
1. MANTIFACruRING
2. RETAIL
3. DAIRY/AGRICULTURAL
4. FINANCE AND INSURANCE
5. FOOD PROCESSING
6. REFRIGERATED WAREHOUSE
7. PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
8. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
9. HEALTH CARE
10. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
11. ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND RECREATION
12. ACCOMMODATION
13. FOOD SERVICES
14. REAL ESTATE
15. MINING
Confidenti al an d P ro pietary
ldaho lnigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E45
1.6. OIL AND GAS
L7. OTHER ISPECTTYI
88. DON',T KNOWi{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
FB2. Approximately, what percent of your total annual operating costs does your electricity bill
represent? (IF NEEDED:An estimate is fine.)
1.. [RECORD RESPONSE]
88. DON'T KNOWA{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
FB3. And about how many people does your firm employ at this facility?
1. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON',T KNOWT{OT SURE
99. REFUSED
End
ENDI. Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Is there anything about your experiences with
&PACIFICOM you'd like to mention that we did not talk about today?I. [RECORD RESPONSEI
88. DON'T KNOWNOT SURE
99. REFUSED
ITHANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE SURVEYI
Confidential and Propietary
ldaho lrrigation Energy Savings Evaluation Report
Appendix C - Process Evaluation Survey lnstruments
Page E46
Attachment C
Idaho Agricultural Energy Efficiency Program
Cost Effectiveness - Memo
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
MEMORANDU M
Don Jones
Aaron Jenniges and Ken Lyons
ldaho Agricultural Energy Efficiency Program Cost-Effectiveness
May 21,2013
The tables below present the cost-effectiveness findings of the ldaho Agricultural Energy Efficiency
program based on 2013 costs and savings estimates provided by PacifiCorp in a spreadsheet entitled
"!ES 2013 Program Re-Design Proposal_052013.x|st''. The utility discount rate is from the 2013
PacifiCorp lntegrated Resource Plan.
Cost-effectiveness was tested using 2013 IRP 20% load factor east system commercial cooling (medium
carbon)decrement. Table 1 lists modeling inputs.
Table 1: Idaho Agricultural
Energr- Efficiency Inputs
Table 2: Idaho Agricultural Enerry-Efficiency
I Future year retail rates escalate dby 1.8% inflation rate annually fuom20l2 rate
720 SW Washington Street
Suite /rco
Portland, OR 97205
Voice: 503.467.71 00
Fax: [phone]
An Employee-Owned Compony
www.cadmusgroup.com
Corporate Headquarters:
1 00 5th Avenue, Suite I 00
Waltham, MA 02451
Voice: 61 7.673.7000
Fax:[phone]OO1
lndustrial Energy Rate ($/kWh)
Annual Program Costs
Table 3: Idaho Agricultural Energy-Efficiency
Savings by Measure Type
1,617,715
Table 4=2O13 (H2) Results
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
+ Conservation Adder $0.093 $476,531 $568,858 $92.327 1.19
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.093 $476.531 $517.144 $40.613 1.09
Utility Cost Test (UCT)$0.062 $317,882 $517,144 $199,262 1.63
Rate lmpact Test (RlM)$636,318 $517,144 ($1 19,174)0.81
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$282.829 $446.786 $163.957 1.58
Table 5=2O14 Results
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
+ Conservation Adder $0.104 $807.450 $892.788 $85,338 1.11
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.104 $807,450 $811.626 $4,175 1.01
Utilitv Cost Test (UCT)$0.071 $548.211 $811.626 $263.415 1.48
Rate lmpact Test RIM)$1,038,855 $811,626 $227.230)0.78
Particioant Cost Test (PCT)$443.680 $680,958 $237,278 1.53
Table 6z ZOLS Resulrc
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
+ Conservation Adder $0.102 $812.253 $946.735 $134,483 1.17
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.102 $812,253 $860,669 $48.416 1.06
Utilitv Cost Test (UCT)$0.070 $557.375 $860,669 $303,294 1.54
Rate lmpact Test (RlM)$1,069,749 $860.669 ($209,081)0.80
Particioant Gost Test (PCT)$439.471 $7U.770 $265,299 1.60
Table 7:2O16 Results
Total Resource Cost Test (PTRC)
+ Conservation Adder $0.101 $813,088 $981,757 $168,669 1.21
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
No Adder $0.101 $813.088 $892.507 $79.419 1.10
Utilitv Cost Test (UCT)$0.070 $563,085 $892,507 $329.422 1.59
Rate lmpact Test (RlM)$1.094.014 $892,507 ($201,507)0.82
Participant Cost Test (PCT)$433,963 $724.474 $290.510 1.67