19961024Application.pdf

Washington Water Po
1411 East Mission
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-3737
1800-727-9170
509 489-0500 Telephone
Washington WaterPower
S
RECEIVED LJ
ILE[) 0
36 OCT 24 flfq 11 06
.}t.HO PUBLIC,
_,TIES COMMISSION
October 23, 1996
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Statehouse Mail
W. 472 Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
)U-
Attention: Ms. Myma Walters, Secretary
Tariff I.P.U.C. No. 25, Electric Service
Tariff I.P.U.C. No. 26, Natural Gas Service
Enclosed for filing with the Commission are an original and seven copies of the
Company's petition requesting approval of tariff revisions related to energy efficiency
programs and funding. Changes are proposed to the following sheets:
Nineteenth Revision Sheet B Cancelling Eighteenth Revision Sheet B (IPUC No. 25)
Fifth Revision Sheet 90 Cancelling Fourth Revision
Fifth Revision Sheet 90A Cancelling Fourth Revision
Fourth Revision Sheet 90B Cancelling Third Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90C Cancelling First Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90D Cancelling First Revision
Third Revision Sheet 90E Cancelling Second Revision
Third Revision Sheet 90F Cancelling Second Revision
Second Revision Sheet 900 Cancelling First Revision
Third Revision Sheet 90H Cancelling Second Revision
Third Revision Sheet 901 Cancelling Second Revision
Fourth Revision Sheet 90J Cancelling Third Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90K Cancelling First Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90L Cancelling First Revision
Original Sheet 91M
Original Sheet 91N
Original Sheet 910
Original Sheet 91P
Original Sheet 91Q
First Revision Sheet 91 Cancelling Original Revision
Twelfth Revision Sheet B Cancelling Eleventh Revision Sheet B (IPUC No. 26)
First Revision Sheet 191 Cancelling Original Revision
Additionally, the Company proposes withdrawing the following sheets:
Third Revision Sheet 190 Cancelling Second Revision
Second Revision Sheet 190A Cancelling First Revision
First Revision Sheet 190B Cancelling Original Revision
p
.
Ms. Myrna Walters, IPUC
October 23, 1996
Page 2
First Revision Sheet 190C Cancelling Original Revision
Second Revision Sheet 190D Cancelling First Revision
Second Revision Sheet 190E Cancelling First Revision
First Revision Sheet 190F Cancelling Original Revision
First Revision Sheet 1900 Cancelling Original Revision
This filing proposes to continue the Company's successful electric energy programs at the
current level. The energy efficiency tariff rider, Schedule 91, at the current 1.50% of base
rates. The resulting revenue of approximately $5 million per year, on a system basis, is
dedicated exclusively to electric energy efficiency programs. The tariff rider for natural gas
programs, Schedule 191, is proposed to be decreased from a surcharge of 0.52% to 0.
The proposed changes to existing electric programs are, for the most part, "housekeeping"
modifications. A significant change is proposed for the Company's market transformation
programs. WWP is proposing to re-orient its market transformation efforts through
participation, starting in 1997, in a coordinated regional approach under the auspices of the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Partnership. Specific changes to and support for the electric
energy efficiency programs, Schedule 90, are discussed in the enclosed application.
The proposed withdrawal of Schedule 190 results from the avoided cost of natural gas
having decreased to a level which significantly reduces the cost-effectiveness of natural gas
energy efficiency programs. The Company intends to make available information on
financing and installation options for interested customers. Additionally, to avoid lost
opportunities, natural gas efficiency improvements may be examined when Company
representatives are reviewing customers' potential electricity improvements. Because the
cost of this service is expected to be minimal, the Company is not proposing cost recovery
at this time. WWP will continue to monitor the weighted average cost of gas to determine
if there are any substantive changes in the gas commodity that would improve the cost-
effectiveness of gas energy efficiency programs.
Within an overall guideline of providing energy efficiency on a cost-effective basis, this filing is
based on the following planning objectives.
1.Emphasize customer satisfaction as a key measure
2.Recognize that energy efficiency provides...
...new resources and long-term resource diversity
...customer service
...public policy responsiveness
...social benefits
3.Focus on market transformation and leveraging opportunities
4.Build on previous field experience and market research
5.Participants pay major percentage when possible
6.Provide stable funding for energy efficiency programs compatible
with WWP financial criteria and the changing industry environment
The enclosed application also describes the results of the 1995-1996 energy efficiency
programs, including the pilot programs and experimental DSM Tariff Rider. Washington
Water Power believes that the Tariff Rider remains a good response for the continuation of
energy efficiency as the industry continues to experience change to a more competitive
environment. Likewise, WWP continues to gain experience regarding provision of energy
efficiency at low costs to benefit participating and nonparticipating customers.
Ms. Myrna Walters, 11 I October 23, 1996
Page 3
In the course of the 1997-1999 energy efficiency planning, eight organizations participated in two
meetings to discuss and critique the Company's proposed programs. The DSM Opportunities
Group ("DOG") offered helpful suggestions many of which have been incorporated in this filing.
The Company appreciates the time and effort provided by members of the DOG.
There is no change in revenue associated with Schedules 90 and 91. Due to load growth
on a system basis, the electric rider is 1.50% compared to the 1.55% level during the 1995-
1996 period. Because of differences in load growth between classes, there is a very slight
change (i.e., up to 0.013 cents/kwh) in the effective rate of some schedules. The proposed
revisions to Schedules 190 and 191 result in a revenue decrease of approximately $450,000
per year on a system basis.
The Company requests that the Commission approve the proposed DSM tariff changes
included in this filing to be effective January 1, 1997 for a three year period ending
December 31, 1999. The Company respectfully requests that the Commission approve the
proposed tariffs at a regularly scheduled business meeting; however, if the proposed
revisions require greater review, the Company suggests that the Modified Procedure be
followed for this filing.
Also enclosed is a "Notice of Tariff Change" which will be posted in all company offices
coincident with the date of this filing.
Questions regarding this letter should be directed to Bruce Folsom at [phone].
Sin erely,
Thomas D. Dukich
Manager, Rates and Tariff Administration
Enclosures
cc: See attached service list
.
BEFORE NE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED PROGRAMS
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
THE WAINGTON WATER POWER IMPANY
NOTICE OF TARIFF CHANGE
(Electric and Natural Gas Service)
Notice is hereby given that the "Sheets" listed below of Tariff I.P.U.C. No. 25, covering, electric service,
and Tariff LP.U.C. No. 26, covering natural gas service, have been filed with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission in Boise, Idaho:
Nineteenth Revision Sheet B Cancelling Eighteenth Revision Sheet B (IPUC No. 25)
Fifth Revision Sheet 90 Cancelling Fourth Revision
Fifth Revision Sheet 90A Cancelling Fourth Revision
Fourth Revision Sheet 90B Cancelling Third Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90C Cancelling First Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90D Cancelling First Revision
Third Revision Sheet 90E Cancelling Second Revision
Third Revision Sheet 90F Cancelling Second Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90G Cancelling First Revision
Third Revision Sheet 90H Cancelling Second Revision
Third Revision Sheet 901 Cancelling Second Revision
Fourth Revision Sheet 90J Cancelling Third Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90K Cancelling First Revision
Second Revision Sheet 90L Cancelling First Revision
Original Sheet 91M
Original Sheet 91N
Original Sheet 910
Original Sheet 91P
Original Sheet 91Q
First Revision Sheet 91 Cancelling Original Revision
Twelfth Revision Sheet B Cancelling Eleventh Revision Sheet B (IPUC No. 26)
First Revision Sheet 191 Cancelling Original Revision
Additionally, the Company proposes withdrawing the following sheets:
Third Revision Sheet 190 Cancelling Second Revision
Second Revision Sheet 190A Cancelling First Revision
First Revision Sheet 190B Cancelling Original Revision
First Revision Sheet 190C Cancelling Original Revision
Second Revision Sheet 190D Cancelling First Revision
Second Revision Sheet 190E Cancelling First Revision
First Revision Sheet 190F Cancelling Original Revision
First Revision Sheet 190G Cancelling Original Revision
This filing proposes to continue the Company's electric energy programs, Schedule 90, and the tariff
rider, Schedule 91, at a level of 1.50. The resulting revenue of approximately $5 million per year, on a
system basis, is dedicated exclusively to electric energy efficiency programs. The tariff rider for natural
gas programs, Schedule 191, is proposed to be decreased from a surcharge of 0.52% to 0. The proposed
withdrawal of Schedule 190 results from the avoided cost of natural gas having decreased to a level which
significantly reduces the cost-effectiveness of natural gas energy efficiency programs.
There is no change in revenue associated with Schedules 90 and 91. The proposed revisions to Schedules
190 and 191 result in a revenue decrease of approximately $450,000 per year on a system basis.
October 23, 1996
Proposed effective date: January 1, 1997
Tariffs available for review
. .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have served the Energy Efficiency Filing of The
Washington Water Power Company by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid to the
following:
Ms. Stephanie Miller
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Statehouse Mail
472 West Washington
Boise, ID 83270
Mr. William Nicholson, Manager
Corporate Energy Services
Potlatch Forest Industries
244 California St., Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94111
NW Power Planning Council
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Mr. Andrew C. Thoman, Esq.
Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc.
P0 Box 1116
Caldwell, ID 83605
Ms. Neva Kaufman
Weatherization Manager
State of Idaho
Dept. of Health & Welfare
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720-5450
Sara Patton
NW Conservation Act Coalition
217 Pine Street, Ste 1020
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Jim Nybo
NW Power Planning Council
851 SW Sixth #1100
Portland, OR 97204
Ms. Nicole Moles
Mr. Mark Trinchero
Davis, Wright, Tremaine
1300 SW Fifth Avenue
2300 First Interstate Bank Tower
Portland, OR 97201
Mr. Gerald Garvey
North Idaho Community Action Agency
211 Coeur d'Alene Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Mr. Ken Hall
Mr. Tom Sawyer
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
Mr. Doug Kilpatrick
Mr. Mert Lott
WUTC
1300 Evergreen Park Dr. So.
Olympia, WA 98504
Community Action Agency, Inc.
124 New Sixth Street
Lewiston, ID 83501
Mr. Charles Sheroke, Esq.
Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc.
P0 Box 1439
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Mr. Don Andre'
Spokane Neighborhood Action
Programs
2115 East First Avenue
Spokane WA 99202
Rob Manifold
Office of the Attorney General
900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98164
Mr. Pete Richardson
Davis, Wright, Tremaine
702 West Idaho, Suite 700
Boise, ID 83702
6 .
Liz Klumpp
WA Energy Policy Group, CTED
925 Plum St. SE, Bldg 4
P0 Box 43173
Olympia, WA 98504-3173
Dated at Spokane, Washington th is 23rd day of October 1996.
L--w-
~
4;~vA Wa-L., Chalon Mauro
Administrative Rate Assistant
0
Thomas D. Dukich
Manager, Rates and Tariff Administration
The Washington Water Power Company
E. 1411 Mission Avenue
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, Washington 99220
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
U
RECEIVED [
--!LED D
96 OCT 29 RVI 11 06
JAHO PUBLW
JHLITIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
1 ))Q a--7
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
. S
1 Contents of the Company's Petition
2
3
4 Section Page
5
6
7 I. Executive Summary
8
9 II. Procedural Information
10
11 III. Review of '95-'96 Programs
12
13 A. Quantitative Results
14 B. 1995-1996 Program Analysis
15 C. Key Influences on '97 2 99 Programs
16
17 IV. Basis for this Filing
18
19 A. Energy Efficiency Planning Objectives
20 B. "Value" of Tariff Rider
21
22 V. Proposal
23
24 A. Programs
25 B. Tariff Rider
26
27 VI. Request
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
3
14
14
14
16
17
17
20
NEI
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 1
S .
1 Contents of the Company's Petition (CONTINUED)
2
3
4 Attachment Description
5
6
7 A. Summary and Descriptions of Proposed Programs
8
9 B. Proposed Energy Efficiency Tariffs
10
11 C. Analysis of Experiments (Pilots)
12
13 1. Resource Conservation Manager
14 2. Trade Allies
15 3. Building Commissioning
16
17
18 D. '95 - '96 Programs Savings Results
19
20 1. Quantitative Results
21 2. WE
22
23 E Cost-Effectiveness Summary
24
25 F. Tariff Rider Regulatory Guidelines
26
27 G Public Involvement
28
29 I-i Results Center Report
30
31 I. Proposed '97 2 99 M&E
32
33
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 2
. .
1 I. Executive Summary
2 The Washington Water Power Company ("Applicant", "WWP" or
3 "Company" herein) respectfully petitions the Commission for approval of
4 tariff revisions related to its energy efficiency programs.
5 Background
6 In 1995, the WUTC approved a two year experimental demand-side
7 management (DSM) funding mechanism called the DSM Tariff Rider. The
8 Commission also approved three pilot DSM programs as well as a menu of
9 other programs which the Company classified as either 'market
10 transformation' or 'direct funding'.
11 Based on the success of the funding mechanism and the performance
12 of the DSM programs, WWP proposes the continuation of the Electric DSM
13 Tariff Rider, renamed as the Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider. This new
14 title is responsive to customer feedback and is more explanatory and
15 "user-friendly".
16 The Tariff Rider has received national recognition and is being
17 cloned in many states across the country. In August 1996, The Results
18 Center published a profile on the Tariff Rider and stated that:
19 "Washington Water Power's Distribution Charge, formally known by
20 its regulators as 'the DSM Tariff Rider', is the most sophisticated
21 model of its kind and a powerful harbinger of what may well become
22 the future predominant energy efficiency services funding mechan-
23 ism in a competitive utility environment." -- Profile #126:
24 Distribution Charge and Market Transformation Programs, page 2.
25
26 The Company is proposing that the majority of its existing energy
27 efficiency programs be continued with minor modifications. Due to recent
28 changes in the economics of natural gas, the Company is proposing major
29 changes to its existing gas tariff rider and programs.
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 3
. .
1 Results of 1995-1996 Programs
2 WWP's 1995-1996 programs are expected to produce system savings
3 of 89,720,591 kwh and 953,157 therms at a cost of $8,016,619 and
4 $738,857, respectively. This 10.24 aMW represents 94% of projected
5 electric savings and the therm total equals 345% of natural gas savings.
6 These savings were achieved at a cost of 90% of budget projections.
7 WWP has received several accolades from regional and national
8 organizations for the design, implementation and results of the 1995 and
9 1996 programs. The Results Center terms WWP's programs and tariff
10 rider as one of the top ten energy services programs in North America.
11 The Northwest Power Planning Council and Natural Resources Defense
12 Council have stated that WWP's efforts have successfully balanced energy
13 efficiency provisioning with industry restructuring.
14 Three "lessons learned" are applied in this filing. First, flexible
15 tariff language enabled management to adapt to customer needs in energy
16 efficiency implementation. This allowed WWP to meet customer needs by
17 working within stated guidelines rather than telling customers that
18 existing tariffs do not allow the requested service. Second, the steady
19 source of funding and multi-year approval by the Commission provided
20 stability to the program staff and supporting industries (vendors,
21 engineers, contractors, etc.). Third, clear regulatory accountability
22 focused implementation on savings targets within prescribed budgets.
23
24 WWP's Energy Efficiency Planning Objectives
25 Washington Water Power has sought to apply six planning objectives
26 during the development of this filing. These objectives capture the intent
27 and guidelines of WWP's energy efficiency programs. The following
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 4
. S
1 objectives fall within an overall guideline of providing energy efficiency
2 on a cost-effective basis.

3 1. Emphasize customer satisfaction as a key measure

4 2. Recognize that energy efficiency provides...

5 . . .new resources and long-term resource diversity

6 .. .customer service

7 . . .public policy responsiveness

8 . . .social benefits

9 3. Focus on market transformation and leveraging opportunities

10 4. Build on previous field experience and market research

11 5. Participants pay major percentage when possible

12 6. Provide stable funding for energy efficiency programs compatible

13 with WWP financial criteria and the changing industry environment

14 In the course of the 1997-1999 energy efficiency planning, eight
15 organizations participated in two meetings to discuss and critique the
16 Company's proposed programs. The DSM Opportunities Group ("DOG")
17 offered helpful suggestions many of which have been incorporated in this
18 filing. The Company appreciates the time and effort provided by members
19 of the DOG.
20
21 Proposed Energy Efficiency Programs and Tariff Rider

22 Through the proposed energy efficiency programs contained in this
23 filing, WWP expects to save 113,896,000 kwh or 13 aMW over three years
24 in Washington and Idaho at a cost of $13,689,000. WWP proposes to offer
25 three residential programs, seven commercial and industrial programs,
26 and two programs with an emphasis on regional efforts.

27 WWP's electric tariff revisions represent minor modifications to
28 existing program offerings which have worked well in the last two years.
29 The Company is continuing a mix of direct funded programs and market
30 transformation programs. The latter is intended to steer customers to
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 5
fl
S
1 energy efficient choices through removing market barriers such as
2 perception of high risk (e.g., expected savings not materializing as
3 planned), limited access to capital, and limited information on technology
4 and financial payback.
5 Washington Water Power proposes to continue the Electric Energy
6 Efficiency Tariff Rider to provide the same level of program funding as in
7 1995 and 1996. Due to load growth on a system basis, the electric rider
8 is 1.50% compared to the 1.55% level in the previous period. Because of
9 differences in load growth between classes, there is a very slight change
10 (i.e., up to 0.013 cents/kwh) in the effective rate by schedule.
11 The Natural Gas Tariff Rider is reduced from 0.52% to 0%. The
12 avoided cost of natural gas has fallen by 35% since the time of the
13 Company's previous energy efficiency filing. This significantly decreases
14 the cost-effectiveness of natural gas energy efficiency at this time. WWP
15 proposes to maintain Schedule 191, Tariff Rider, at $0.00 per therm as a
16 placeholder. WWP will continually monitor the weighted average cost of
17 gas to determine if there are any substantial changes in the gas
18 commodity market that would improve the cost-effectiveness of gas
19 energy efficiency programs.
20
21 II. Procedural Information
22 The name of the Applicant is The Washington Water Power Company,
23 a Washington corporation, whose principal business office is East 1411
24 Mission Avenue, Spokane, Washington. The Applicant maintains business
25 offices in Spokane, Colville, Othello, and Pullman, Washington, as well as
26 Lewiston and Couer d'Alene, Idaho. Business offices supporting natural
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 6
. .
1 gas operations are also located in Medford, Oregon and South Lake Tahoe,
2 California.
3 The Applicant is an investor-owned utility engaged in the
4 generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in certain
5 portions of eastern Washington and in northern Idaho. The Applicant also
6 provides natural gas service in certain portions of eastern Washington,
7 northern Idaho, California, and Oregon. The Applicant provides electric
8 and natural gas service to its customers at prices among the lowest in the
9 United States. The Applicant promotes the efficient and safe use of
10 energy.
11 The Applicant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Washington
12 Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Idaho Public Utilities
13 Commission, the Montana Public Service Commission, the Oregon Public
14 Utilities Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the
15 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Communication in reference to
16 this Application should be addressed to:
17 Thomas D. Dukich
18 Manager, Rates and Tariff Administration
19 The Washington Water Power Company
20 E. 1411 Mission Avenue
21 P.O. Box 3727
22 Spokane, Washington 99220
23 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
24
25 David J. Meyer
26 Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke, & Miller
27 717 W. Sprague, Suite 1200
28 Spokane, Washington 99204
29 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
30
31
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 7
S .
1 III. Review of '95 - '96 Programs

2 A. Quantitative Results

3 WWP's 1995-1996 programs gained national attention in several
4 respects. The Results Center, an independent research and analysis firm,
5 named WWP's programs as "among the top ten energy service programs in
6 North America" and published a commending 27 page "Profile". This
7 Profile is included as Attachment H. E-Source, an information
8 dissemination service, highlighted WWP's programs in a "strategic memo"
9 format. Several organizations including the Northwest Power Planning
10 Council and the Natural Resources Defense Council have cited WWP's
11 programs as models which should be considered for adoption by other

12 utilities.

13 Over the two year period ending in December 1996, the Company's
14 programs are projected to have achieved system savings of 10.24 aMW and
15 953,157 therms. This compares favorably to WWP's projections contained
16 in its 1994 application of 11.04 MW and 432,500 therms. Attachment D
17 provides a program by program summary.

18 These savings were achieved at a cost of $8,016,619 for electric
19 and $820,246 for natural gas. By the end of 1996, the Company expects
20 energy efficiency expenses to be slightly under the two year rider revenue
21 by $100,000 for electric and $50,000 for natural gas. Any excess
22 revenues will immediately be rolled into ongoing energy efficiency
23 programs.

24 The Company's achievements in energy efficiency have been
25 accomplished due to a focus by the Implementation Team on savings
26 targets. The Team transformed their role from grant dispensers--under
27 the '92 - '94 direct funding programs--to marketing and technical
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 8
S S
1 consulting specialists. In essence, the Team was given two targets, kwh
2 and therms, and was asked to bring in those savings under a set budget.

3 B. 1995-96 Program Analysis

4 The Company's 1995-96 DSM programs included three pilot energy
5 efficiency programs and the DSM Tariff Rider. A full analysis of the pilot
6 programs is provided in Attachment C.
7 Resource Conservation Manager ("RCM") Program

8 The ACM program has been a strong and unqualified success. Two
9 Resource Conservation Managers--one for Eastern Washington and one for
10 Northern Idaho--were hired by three school districts to acquire savings of
11 electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, and solid waste primarily through
12 improved energy management. The RCMs work closely with students,
13 teachers, school administrators and the janitorial staff to promote energy
14 and resource conservation.
15 The costs of the RCM program are paid by the participating school
16 districts out of the savings from each of the five cost-saving categories.
17 This program includes a salary guarantee by WWP. Together, the two RCMs
18 generated $253,861 in savings at a cost of $100,000, thus WWP's salary
19 guarantee was not triggered.

20 The salaried RCMs at the participating school districts is a two year
21 effort after which the school district is expected to "institutionalize"
22 the policies and conservation practices of all types including waste
23 recycling and water conservation. All of the school districts
24 participating in WWP's RCM program have adopted these policies.
25 Based on the success of this program, WWP will continue the public
26 school RCM program. In addition, WWP proposes to apply the basic
27 formula, under the name of Resource Management Partnership Program
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 9
S I
1 ("RMPP"), to non-profit agencies, colleges, governmental agencies, and
2 private companies (e.g., banks and real estate offices) for which
3 approximately 40 buildings under common management can have energy
4 consumption and conservation practices monitored and analyzed by one
5 ACM.
6 Trade Ally Program

7 The Trade Ally Program provides a means for WWP to bring together
8 third party HVAC dealers, architectural and engineering firms, and
9 building management companies with customers having energy
10 management needs. This program offers technical and marketing
11 assistance to improve the Trade Allies' ability to secure customers for
12 energy efficiency projects. Specifically, WWP offers independent
13 assessment of potential energy savings and assistance in arranging
14 financing from banks or other sources.

15 Under the protocol for establishing energy savings, WWP takes
16 credit for those projects in which one of three identifiable market
17 barriers were removed: perceptions of high risk, limited access to
18 capital, and limited information on available technology. To date, this
19 program has resulted in five such projects with savings of 377,436 kwh
20 and 646 therms with an additional 41 projects totaling 2,098,195 kwh
21 and 2,509 therms currently in progress.
22 Building Commissioning Program

23 The purpose of the Building Commissioning Program was to
24 introduce the concept of building commissioning into WWP's service
25 territory by conducting a limited test program. The small test program
26 would help train local firms as commissioning agents and provide a
27 valuable service to customers participating in the program. These two
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 10
. .
1 outcomes were intended to help stimulate a demand and supply for further
2 commissioning activities in WWP's service territory. Potential agents
3 indicated as part of their submittal of qualifications that commissioning
4 was not a common practice but that they perceived it to be valuable.

5 Several of the program projects were older buildings that did not
6 contain many automated control systems or energy efficiency features.
7 Building commissioning procedures that have been established in other
8 regional programs did not lend themselves well to these older structures.
9 Also, projects did not include buildings which had installed a significant
10 amount of more sophisticated energy efficiency features, another
11 circumstance which is well suited to building commissioning.

12 Given the pilot program experience and other regional developments,
13 WWP has decided not to continue its existing building commissioning
14 program. There are several regional efforts underway to develop market
15 moving programs to promote building commissioning that WWP could
16 participate in as a more effective mechanism to further building
17 commissioning in our service territory. One of these programs is building
18 operator certification to help train building operators in energy efficient
19 building operating and maintenance practices. A building commissioning
20 effort closely tied in with new construction under the non-residential
21 energy code may be more effective by targeting facilities that are most
22 likely to benefit by building commissioning.
23 Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider

24 The Energy Efficiency Tariff Rider is a "per kwh" and "per therm"
25 charge on all energy transmitted on WWP's distribution system. Revenue
26 generated is dedicated exclusively to energy efficiency programs. The
27 1.55% electric charge and 0.52% natural gas charge is expected to
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 11
. .
1 generate $8,745,506 and $842,739, respectively, in the two year period
2 ending December 31, 1996 in Washington and Idaho.

3 Washington Water Power believes that the Tariff Rider accomplished
4 the following primary objectives for which it was designed.
5 --Promotion and support of energy efficiency was continued.
6 --A stable, funding source was established.
7 --Delivery of energy efficiency was more cost-effective with no earnings

8 or tax effect from energy efficiency investment.
9 --Customer service and expectations for energy efficiency continued.
10 --Regulatory assets were not accrued.
11 --Internal energy efficiency capital budgeting concerns were erased.
12 --Earnings impacts of energy efficiency were neutral.

13 Each of the above points were successfully achieved by the Tariff
14 Rider. This is explained starting on page 16 under "'Value' of Tariff

15 Rider".

16 C. Key Influences on '97 - '99 Programs

17 During the operation of the 1995-1996 programs, several features
18 or benefits stood out as key "lessons learned". Of major note was the
19 adaptive management or flexibility afforded to the Implementation Team
20 to pursue energy savings unencumbered by tariff language. Previous
21 energy efficiency tariffs have been very specific which did not allow for
22 innovation unless accompanied by tariff revisions. The 1995-1996 tariffs
23 for the commercial and industrial site-specific programs were target-
24 based with broad guidelines including the use of the utility cost test to
25 determine funding amounts. This allowed WWP to meet customer needs by
26 working within stated guidelines rather than telling customers that
27 existing tariffs do not allow the requested energy efficiency service.
28 The steady source of funding and multi-year approval by the
29 Commission has provided stability to the energy efficiency programs.
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 12
. .
1 This stability allowed programs to be "rolled out" and supported in a
2 consistent manner. Stability for staffing purposes, with appropriate
3 training, was particularly important during the 1995 to 1996 period given
4 the changes occurring in the industry and within the Company.

5 Clear regulatory accountability focused implementation on savings
6 targets within prescribed budgets. The regulatory focus on savings led to
7 the design of measurement and evaluation which was administered in a
8 cost-effective manner.

9 Lastly, WWP continues to benefit from involvement by its
10 stakeholders. In the energy efficiency arena, there is an "expert" public
11 which continues to advise the Company on noteworthy efforts and provide
12 positive critiques. During the course of the 1995-1996 program, WWP
13 convened an "update" meeting with interested parties to examine the mid-
14 term status of WWP's programs. Thereafter, the DSM Opportunities Group
15 (DOG) met on two occasions in the development of this filing to share
16 observations on best practices for successful energy efficiency programs.
17 The Company appreciates the time and interest devoted by the eight
18 organizations comprising the DOG. Washington Water Power has made a
19 good faith effort to address and incorporate suggested revisions.

20 Several Washington industrial gas transportation customers
21 (Schedule 146) expressed concern that they should be excluded from Tariff
22 Rider charges. With the subsequent decrease in natural gas avoided costs
23 and the reduction of the natural gas rider to "0", there is no rider charge
24 to any natural gas customer. However, the Tariff Rider is intended to be a
25 distribution charge and, as such, would be applied to all customers if
26 Schedule 191 were to be increased in the future.
27
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 13
. .
1 IV. Basis for this Filing
2 A. Energy Efficiency Objectives
3 Washington Water Power has applied six planning objectives to the
4 programs proposed in this filing. These objectives are the foundation for
5 WWP's proposed programs. These objectives also guide the planning and
6 administration of the Company's programs.
7 1. Emphasize customer satisfaction as key measure
8 2. Recognize that energy efficiency provides...
9 . . . new resources and long-term resource diversity
10 .. .customer service
11 ...public policy responsiveness
12 . . social benefits
13 3. Focus on market transformation and leveraging opportunities
14 4. Build on previous field experience and market research
15 5. Participants pay major percentage when possible
16 6. Provide stable funding for energy efficiency compatible with WWP
17 financial criteria and the changing industry environment
18
19 All of the above objectives fit within the premise that WWP's
20 programs are cost-effective. This documentation is included in
21 Attachment E.
22 Customer responsiveness and satisfaction as the first objective
23 speaks to Washington Water Power's emphasis on meeting consumer needs.
24 WWP's customers continue to tell the Company that energy efficiency
25 should continue to be a priority. For participating customers, post-
26 installation surveys indicate a "very satisfied" rating of 90% with WWP's
27 performance in energy efficiency implementation.
28 The second objective notes that energy efficiency has several
29 purposes. The multi-faceted benefits of energy efficiency makes it a
30 unique service in the electric industry. As the industry moves toward
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 14
PJ

.
1 greater competition, the distribution or "line" service is expected to
2 remain a natural monopoly for the foreseeable future.

3 WWP continues to believe that the future of successful energy
4 efficiency is in promoting customer choice towards energy efficiency
5 decisions. This market transformation allows customers, given accurate
6 and complete information on the benefits and economic payback of
7 programs, to pursue efficiency improvements with minimal utility cash
8 contribution. WWP's role is to assist in removing market barriers such as
9 the interpretation of technical information, access to financing,
10 confirmation of savings, etc. Additionally, WWP can assist in leveraging
11 energy efficiency opportunities through codes and a mix of cost-effective
12 regional programs and services. Washington Water Power will be
13 participating in the Northwest Energy Efficiency Partnership ("NEEP") as a
14 primary means of implementing market transformation.

is Building on previous field experience and market research, as the
16 fourth objective, emphasizes providing customers with valued services.
17 WWP's programs have evolved based on experience with program delivery,
18 customer acceptance, and program improvements.

19 Washington Water Power's programs steer participants toward
20 paying the majority of energy efficiency costs with the exception of
21 limited income customers. As the fifth planning objective, this
22 recognizes that participants who benefit from energy efficiency should
23 pay a corresponding share. The utility contribution, however, does serve
24 non-participating customers in the form of low cost energy savings and
25 maintaining the capability to access greater energy efficiency savings in
26 the future as needed and appropriate.
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 15
.

1 The sixth objective is to provide stable funding for energy
2 efficiency compatible with WWP financial criteria and the changing
3 industry environment. This is further discussed in the next section.

4 B. "Value" of Tariff Rider

5 At the current juncture in the electric industry, WWP believes that
6 its programs and funding mechanism provide benefits to all and the Tariff
7 Rider experiment has been successful. The measure of success is based on
8 the Tariff Rider serving several disparate stakeholders: customers,
9 financial community, energy efficiency dealers ("infrastructure"), energy
10 efficiency advocates, and the Company.

11 The Tariff Rider meets customer needs by providing access to energy
12 efficiency. WWP's surveys continue to show that energy efficiency
13 remains a strong concern. Washington Water Power's 1996 Corporate
14 Social Responsibility Survey asks respondents to rank thirty-four issues
15 in order of importance for Company attention in the next five years.
16 Energy efficiency ranked at the top of the list. This is consistent with
17 WWP's other survey instruments including the Voice of the Customer,
18 periodic focus groups, and field experience in the community.

19 The Tariff Rider has provided funding stability to energy efficiency
20 at a time when utilities across the region are determining if and how to
21 fund conservation during this period of industry transition. Through this
22 funding stability, WWP has been able to continue the promotion of energy
23 efficiency and support of the dealers in WWP's service territory.

24 Financially, utility analysts have been concerned about regulatory
25 assets, or utility investment which cannot be sold at market rates for
26 energy or capacity. The Tariff Rider has been responsive to this concern
27 by expensing DSM costs in one year rather than accruing a more costly
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 16
.

L_']

1 long-lived asset on the utility's books. Additionally, the Tariff Rider
2 removes energy efficiency from the internal capital budgeting process. As
3 WWP's capital budget has decreased in the past few years, internal
4 competition for funding revenue producing or system maintenance
5 projects has increased.
6
7 V. Proposal

8 A.1 Programs, Electric

9 WWP proposes to offer three residential and seven commercial and
10 industrial electric programs. In addition, the Company will offer two
11 combination programs with a focus on regional and market transformation

12 efforts.

13 Through these programs, WWP expects to save 113,896,000 kwh or
14 13 aMW over three years at a cost of $13,689,000.

15 Washington Water Power proposes the following residential
16 programs.

17 Manufactured Home Acquisition Program

18 Limited Income Residential Energy Efficiency

19 HVAC System Efficiency
20

21 These programs are a continuation of existing offerings plus the
22 addition of the HVAC System Efficiency Program. Each program is
23 described in Attachment A, with supporting tariffs included in
24 Attachment B.

25 WWP's energy efficiency programs for commercial and industrial
26 (C/I) customers include:

27 Site Specific

28 Prescriptive Variable Frequency Drives for HVAC

29 Prescriptive Variable Frequency Drives for dry kilns

30 Prescriptive Lighting Program
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 17
.

.

1 Prescriptive Fuel Switching Program

2 Trade Ally

3 Resource Management Partnership Program
4

5 Each of these commercial and industrial programs have been offered
6 in some form by WWP in the past. The fuel switching programs and
7 lighting rebates, last offered in 1994, are included so that WWP's small
8 commercial customers can have access to energy efficiency programs.

9 Two market transformations programs are proposed.

10 Energy 2000

11 Northwest Energy Efficiency Partnership ("NEEP")
12
13 These programs continue WWP's commitment to regional and market
14 transformation efforts. The Energy 2000 Program continues local
15 promotion of new energy efficiency services and new technologies that
16 provide customer benefits. The NEEP is a non-profit organization
17 established to pursue a regional approach to gaining permanent changes in
18 markets for selected energy efficiency products and services. WWP's
19 participation in NEEP is intended to leverage the Company's market
20 transformation activities with coordinated regional efforts. The
21 Company's share is $1.04 million each year in 1998 and 1999. WWP,
22 together with other regional investor-owned utilities, participated in the
23 planning phase of NEEP to address key concerns such as cost-
24 effectiveness, administration, and local participation. Attachment A
25 includes more explanation of NEEP.

26 All of the above programs are cost-effective by WWP's planning
27 standards. If any of these programs appear to not be producing the desired
28 results, WWP will make necessary adjustments. As an example, the
29 Company did not implement the Natural Gas High Efficiency Appliance
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 18
. .
Education Program approved in WWP's 1994 filing. This is because, during
initial implementation, appliance dealers advised WWP that such a
program would not have the desired effect and would not be cost-
effective.
No tariffed natural gas programs are proposed for 1997 through
1999. The cost-effectiveness of natural gas energy efficiency decreased
significantly due to a decline of 35% in natural gas avoided costs. Natural
gas programs that remain cost-effective under the new avoided costs are
those which are information-based. These types of programs, in turn,
have relatively small budgets at a level not justifying a stand-alone cost
recovery mechanism.
WWP intends to respond to customer inquiries about natural gas
energy efficiency with a series of informational brochures on market rate
financing options, available technology, and suggestions on arranging for
installation.
Because the Company is a combination utility with electric energy
efficiency programs, WWP will continue to have minimum viable programs
which can be activated should natural gas avoided costs increase.
Likewise, the Company is maintaining promotion of energy efficiency and
the trade ally infrastructure through the electric side of the business.
WWP will be able to achieve a majority of the energy efficiency
objectives for natural gas as a consequence of implementing the array of
electric efficiency programs contained in this filing. Most, if not all, of
the electric efficiency programs will offer the additional benefit of
maintaining the trade ally relationships and staff experience that can be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 19
. .
1 employed to more actively promote gas efficiency should the need arise.
2 Additionally, WWP will offer gas efficiency education and promotion to
3 our customers when it can be obtained for minimal incremental cost.
4
5 a Tariff Rider
6 Washington Water Power proposes to continue the Electric Energy
7 Efficiency Tariff Rider to provide the same level of program funding as in
8 1995 and 1996. Due to load growth on a system basis, the electric rider
9 is 1.50% compared to the 1.55% level in the previous period. Because of
10 differences in load growth between classes, there is a very slight change
11 (i.e., up to 0.013 cents/kwh) in the effective rate by schedule. As
12 explained in the previous section, no tariffed natural gas energy
13 efficiency programs are proposed. The Tariff Rider for natural gas is
14 proposed to be $0.00 per therm on Schedule 191. Preservation of the
15 Tariff would allow the rate to be increased if the avoided costs of natural
16 gas rise and natural gas programs once again become cost-effective.
17 In the time period since the Commission's prior authorization of the
18 Tariff Rider, a new retail tariff has been approved by the Commission,
19 Schedule 26. This Tariff Rider, as a non-bypassable distribution charge,
20 is applicable to Schedule 26.
21
22 VI. Request
23 Attachment B contains the Company's proposed energy efficiency
24 tariff revisions, Schedules 90 and 190. The Tariff Rider is included as
25 Schedules 91 and 191. Washington Water Power requests that these
26 tariffs remain in place for three years through December 31, 1999, and no
27 longer be considered "experimental".
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 20
. 0

1 The Company intends to make adjustments to Schedules 90, 91, 190,
2 and 191 as necessary during the next three years to respond to industry
3 changes. Such instances requiring modifications may include legislation,
4 Commission policy statements, changing cost-effective criteria, or
5 regional agreements.

6 Approval of the proposed energy efficiency tariff revisions will
7 allow the Washington Water Power Company to continue to offer its menu
8 of market transformation, direct funding, and customer assistance
9 programs.

10 The Company respectfully requests that the Commission approve
11 WWP's proposed tariff revisions to become effective January 1, 1997.
12

13 DATED this day of October, 1996.

14 The Washington Water Power Company

17 By:

18 Thomas D. Dukich

19 Manager, Rates and Tariff Administration
20
WWP PETITION FOR '97 -'99 TARIFF REVISIONS Page 21

.

.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
:ss.
County of Spokane )
I, Thomas D. Duckich, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That he is the
Manager - Rates and Tariff Administration of The Washington Water Power Company and
makes this verification for and on its behalf of said corporation, being thereto duly
authorized
That he has read the foregoing application, knows the contents thereof, and believes
the same to be true.
SIGNED AND SWORN to before me this S " day of October, 1996, by Thomas D.
Dukich.
A11w,
, fUBU ) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of

18 Washington, residing at Spokane.
Commission Expires:
%
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
4
1997-1999 DSM Program Budget
1997 1999 IQQS .,
WWP Electric Programs Units
mWh
Savings
Utility
Cost
$k Units
amW
Savings
Utility
Cost
$k Units
amW
Savings
U"Ilty
Cost
3k Units
wnw
Savings
WRY
Cost
$k
MAP
U Energy Emclency
HVAC System Efficiency
Trade Ally Education
' Natural Gas Awareness
RMPP
PreecdptiveUghtlng
Preec. Fuel SwItching
Trade Ally
CA Site SpecIfic
Energy 2000
Trade Ally Tool Lending
Regional Programs
965 0.2280 $2,272 0 0.0000 $0 0 0.0000 $0 965 0.2280 $2,272
215 0.2315 $584 275 0.2315 $590 275 0.2315 $592 825 0.6945 $1,767
160 0.0731 $111 160 0.0731 $114 160 0.0731 $117 480 0.2192 $342 0 0.0000 $56 0 $58 0 $59 0 $173
1 1.5982 $0 1 1.5982 $0 1 1.5962 $0 3 4.7945 $0 0 0.2854 $141 0 0.2854 $149 0 0.2854 $157 0 0.8562 $44
140 0.1142 $131 140 0.1144 $135 140 0.1146 $138 420 0.3432 $404 115 0.2275 $130 115 0.2275 $134 115 0.2275 $137 345 0.6826 $401 50 0.4338 $189 50 0.4338 $199 50 0.4338 $206 150 1.3014 $596 180 1.0357 $940 180 1.1905 $1,060 180 1.1905 $1,077 540 3.4167 $3,076 0 0.0000 $366 0 0.0571 $366 0 0.2654 $262 0 0.3425 $993 0 0.0000 $36 0 $36 0 $38 0 $110
i 0.5500 $669 - 1 0.5500 $1,215 F 1 0.5500 $1,224 1 3 1.6500 $,106
•UDD NZA 4•V I4UUJ 3,731 14.53 113,689
.
WWP 1997-1999 DSM
Attachment A Page 1 Revised: 10114/96
. .
Program: Manufactured Home Acquisition Program (MAP)
Availability. To manufacturers of new HUD-Code manufactured (mobile) housing which also
meets the Bonneville Power Administrations regional MAP specifications and
receives electric service from the Company under tariff Schedule 01 for space
heating Detenninations of qualification for MAP are made by state energy
offices.
Measures Company approved measures eligible for installation under this program are all
components and construction of the manufactured housing meeting regional
specifications The measure life is estimated at 30 years
Funding. The Company will pay $1,500 to the manufacturer of each qualifying MAP home
(constructed on or after October 25, 1994) and $2,500 for MAP homes
constructed on or after April 1, 1992, but prior to October 25, 1994 in addition to
a $150 per home administrative payment to the Bonneville Power Administration.
In order to receive payment, homes must be manufactured prior to July 26, 1995
and sited on or before January 26, 1997 Total utility cost for the three year period
is estimated at $227 million dollars
Program: Natural Gas Awareness Program
Description The purpose of this program is to make residential electric space and water heat
Customers aware of the benefits of converting to natural gas space and water
heating.
Availability. To any residential Customer interested in converting electrical appliances to
natural gas service.
Measures The program provides educational materials to Customers about the efficient use
of natural gas space heating and water heating appliances.
Funding. Tariff rider dollars will not be applied to this program.
Savings. Projected savings for the 3 year period is 42 million kWh.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 2
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
S .
Program: Limited Income Residential Energy Efficiency
Description: The purpose of this program is to assist the Customer in funding a portion of
weatherization insulation measures. The program would operate through the
limited income agencies.
Availability: To any Owner of a residential dwelling in which a Limited Income Customer
receives electric service from the Company under tariff Schedule 01. The dwelling
must utilize electric space heating equipment as the primary source of space
conditioning. The Limited Income Customer must also use at least 4,000 kWh's
per year for space conditioning in order to qualify for this program. The Agency
will qualify customers for assistance under this program using the federal low
income guidelines.
Measures. Company-approved measures eligible for installation under this program are as
follows:
Measure Measure Life
Ceiling insulation 30 years
Wall insulation 30 years
Floor insulation 30 years
Infiltration Control 10 years
Electric space heat to natural gas 25 years
Electric water heat to natural gas 25 years
Set-Back Thermostat 10 years
Water Heater Wrap 10 years
Whenever possible, the replaced electric equipment, for which the Customer is
receiving funding, shall be removed and destroyed. If the equipment cannot be
removed, then the heating function will be disabled.
Funding. Upon completion of the installation of measures, the Company will reimburse the
Agency as follows:
Measure Funding Level
Weatherization $0.40 cents/kWh
Space Heat Conversion $0.23 cents/kWh
Water Heat Conversion $650.00 per tank
Funding for no more than $1,767,000 over the 3 year period will be provided
under this and previous tariffs in the Company's combined Washington and Idaho
service areas. Total utility cost estimated for the 3 year period is $1.76 million
• dollars. Designated program funding will expire on December 3, 1999. Projects
must be completed and all invoices and verification necessary to process Customer
grants should be received by the Company on or before December 3, 1999.
Savings: Projected savings for the 3 year period is 6 million kWh.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 3
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
• .
Program: HVAC System Efficiency Program
Description: This program is designed to improve residential HVAC system efficiency by
reducing energy losses associated with leaky duct systems and poor furnace filter
maintenance.
The duct sealing program will include two components; one for new homes and
one for retrofits. The new home component will allow builders of new homes with
ducts in unconditioned areas to voluntarily submit the home to a duct blaster test.
Homes that meet a minimum performance criteria will earn the right to advertise
their home as a "Energy Efficiency Duct Home". There will be no direct
incentives provided under this component of the program.
The retrofit component will be open to any existing home with ducts in
unconditioned areas. The program will provide the homeowner with a $50 direct
incentive for pressure panning their home. For homes not meeting pressure pan
specifications, an additional incentive of up to $200, not to exceed 50% of total
job cost, will be awarded for duct sealing.
The furnace filter component of the HVAC System Efficiency Program will focus
on increasing the energy efficiency of HVAC systems through the proper
maintenance of furnace filters. The program will include an educational
component to disseminate information concerning the energy, health and comfort
benefits of proper furnace filter replacements and the different kinds of furnace
filters. This component will also include the distribution of filter change reminder
aids which may include calendar markers and refrigerator magnets that include the
scheduled date for the next change. Designated program funding will expire on
December 3, 1999.
Availability: Available to any residential customer with a ducted system who receives electric
service under tariff Schedule 01.
Funding: Total utility cost estimated for the 3 year period is $342,000
Savings: Projected savings over the 3 year period is 1.9 million kWh for the two
program components.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 4
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
.
S
Program Commercial/Industrial Site Specific Program
Description: Company approved measures eligible for installation under this program are as
follows:
Measure Measure Life
Energy Management Systems 10 years
Direct Digital Control Systems 10 years
Lighting Control Systems 10 years
SCADA Systems 10 years
Process and other Miscellaneous Control Systems 10 years
HVAC and Rcfngeration - Unitary 10 years
HVAC and Refrigeration - Central 15 years
Heat Recovery Systems 15 years
Variable Frequency Drives 15 years
Fan, Compressor and Pump systems 15 years
Process Fuel Switching 15 years
Other Motor and Drive Systems 15 years
Other Process Efficiency Improvements 15 years
Chillers 20 years
Additional measures may qualify for funding under this program Such
determination shall be at the discretion of the Company. All measures approved
for funding shall exceed local energy efficiency codes or where no such code
exists, shall meet or exceed "standard industry practices" and/or the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Inc
(ASHRAE)/Illummatmg Engineering Society of North America (IES) standard
I
90.1 as determined by the Company.
Availability Commercial or industrial customers receiving electric service under tariff Schedule
21, 25, 26, 31 or special contract for electric service which includes demand side
management system rates, or any Owner developing a new commercial or
industrial facility that will receive service under Schedule 21,25,26, 31 or special
contract for electric service which includes demand side management rates.
Funding To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must do one of the following
prior to December 3, 1999 1) begin development of a Company approved
engineering analysis in accordance with a Company approved scope of work, or 2)
receive formal acceptance from the Company of an engineering analyses of
savings potential performed at Applicant's direction and expense, or 3) match
savings measures with Company approved prescriptive measures and return
applications/forms to the Company. Projects must be completed, all invoices
requested by the Company submitted and all verifications necessary to process the
incentive should be received by the Company on or before December 4, 2000
The Company will provide funding to the Customer on a Site Specific basis equal
to the lesser of a) 50% of the incremental measure cost orb) an amount equal to
Company approved estimated first year kWh savings times $05 cents per kWh
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 5 1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
S
.
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific Program (continued)
Funding from the Company will also include up to 100% of the cost of any Site
Specific Studies or services performed at the Company's direction by the
Company or a qualified Engineer or Contractor on the Applicant's behalf for
projects which are ultimately completed Such studies or services costs shall not
exceed $012 times the square footage of the facility under study, as deteniuned by
the Company.
For projects that are not ultimately completed, the Company funding for Such Site
Specific studies or services shall not exceed 50% of cost of such studies or
services The Applicant shall remain responsible for the remaining costs of such
studies or services
Funding Total utility cost estimated for the 3 year period is $3 million dollars
Savings Projected savings for the 3 year period is 299 million kWh
Program Commercial/Industrial Site Specific - PRESCRIPTIVE
Variable Frequency Drives for Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric service under tariff
Schedule 21, 25, 26 or special contract for electric service which includes demand
side management system rates, or any Owner or Developer developing a new
commercial or industrial facility that will receive service under tariff Schedule 21,
25, 26 or special contract for electric service which includes demand side
management system rates
Measures Measures qualifying are new Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) for new electric
motors or existing electric motors where no such Drive previously existed, used to
drive heating, ventilating and air conditioning fans, heating pumps, cooling pumps
or combined heating and cooling pumps
Analysis Savings for VFDs are determined Prescriptively by size and end use of the electric
motor driven by the VFD using standard engineering practices and methods
Funding To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must return applications/
forms to the Company no later than December 3, 1999 Projects must be
completed, all invoices requested by the Company submitted and all verifications
necessary to process the incentive should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a Prescriptive basis as
follows not to exceed 50% of the actual installed cost of the Variable Frequency
Drive
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 6
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
. ..
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific - PRESCRIPTIVE
HVAC-YFD Program (continued)
Maximum $ Per Horsepower of
JIVAC Equipment driven by VFD electric motor driven by VFD
a)HVAC Fan Motors $50.00
b)HVAC Cooling Pump Motors $55.00
c)HVAC Heating Pump Only or $8500
Combined Heating and Cooling
Pump Motors
Funding amounts are subject to change as determined by the Company's
energy savings evaluations and market changes affecting the costs of
Variable Frequency Drives. Funding for this program is provided as pars of the
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific program.
Prescriptive: Commercial I Industrial Site Specific - PRESCRIPTIVE
Variable Frequency Drives for Lumber Dry Kilns Fan Motors
.
Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric service under tariff
Schedule 21, 25,26 or special contract for electric service which includes demand
side management system rates, or any Owner or Developer developing a new
commercial or industrial facility that will receive service under tariff Schedule 21,
25,26 or special contract for electric service which includes demand side
management system rates
Measures Measures qualifying are new Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) for new electric
motors or existing electric motors where no such Drive previously existed, used to
drive Lumber Dry Kiln Fans.
Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must return
applications/forms to the Company no later than December 3, 1999 In addition,
projects must be completed and all invoices requested by the Company from the
Customer and all verifications necessary to process Customer grants should be
received by the Company on or before December 4, 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a Prescriptive basis not to
exceed 50% of the actual installed cost of the Variable Frequency Drive or
$120.00 per kilowatt (kW) saved.
Funding amounts are subject to change as determined by the Company's energy
savings evaluations and market changes affecting the costs of Variable Frequency
Drives for Lumber Dry Kiln applications. Funding for this program is provided as
part of the Commercial/Industrial Site Specific program.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 7
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
. .
Program: Commercial Prescriptive Lighting Rebate Program
Description: This program will provide direct incentives to Customers who perform lighting
retrofit projects Funding will only be available for the above measures on existing
facilities and where installation is not required by local energy efficiency codes or
where no such code exists, lighting measures approved for funding must meet or
exceed "standard industry practices" as determined by the Company.
Availability To any commercial customer receiving electric service under tariff Schedule 011
Funding Company funding under this program is limited to $3,000 per site, per year.
Minimum funding shall be $20000 per project to qualify. The Company will not
fund the cost of Site Specific studies or analyses under this program To qualify
for funding under this tariff, all applications must be returned to the Company no
later than December 3, 1999 Projects must be completed, all invoices requested
by the Company submitted and all verifications necessary to process the incentive
should be received by the Company on or before December 4, 2000 Total utility
cost over the period 1997 through 1999 is $404,000 and will be provided under
this tariff in WWP's combined Washington and Idaho service areas The
Company will rebate to customers at the following levels:
Measure Measure Life Rebate/unit
Compact fluorescent
Hardwired Ballast 10 years $10
Lamp w/locking ballast 10 years $10
4 foot T-8 Lamps & Electronic Ballast
I lamp 12 years $5
2 lamp 12 years $5
3 lamp 12 years $10
4lamp 12 years $10
S foot T-S & Electronic Ballast
liamp 12 years $5
2 lamp 12 years $10
ReflectorfDelamp (retrofit only)
4 foot (per lamp removed) 12 years $5
8 foot (per lamp removed) 12 years $10
Interior BID (excludes mercury vapor)
Otol00watts 12 years $30
101 to 175 watts 12 years $30
l76 watts orgreater 12 years $30
Exterior fill) (excludes mercury vapor)
Otol00'watts 12 years $15
Uptol75watts 12 years $15
l76 watts orgreater 12 years $15
Exit Sign (mud be Faergy Sear coipilince) 12 years $15
Occupancy Sensor
72-350 watts connected load 10 years $20
351-1000 watts connected load 10 years $35
1001 watts or more connected load 10 years $50
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 8
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
. .
Commercial Prescriptive Lighting Rebate Program (continued)
Daylight Sensor/Controls
72-350 watts connected load 10 years $10
351-1000 watts connected load 10 years $20
1001 watts or more connected load 10 years $30
Savings Projected savings for the 3 years period is 3 million kWh
Program Commercial Prescriptive Fuel Switching Rebate Program
Description This program will provide low interest loans to customers for capital expenditure
associated with switching from electric to natural gas as the primary fuel for space
heating The program will work in partnership with local financial institutions to
provide market rate loans to credit worthy customers The Company will
purchase the loans interest liability from the lending financial institution The
Company approved measures eligible for installation under this program must
have end use efficiencies of at least 90% (and must meet current state or federal
minimum efficiency requirements)
Availability To any commercial customer receiving electric service under tariff Schedule 011
Funding The company will provide funding to purchase loan interest liability from the
lending financial institution This funding will be provided as follows
Electric Heating System North Region South Region
Maximum Funding Funding
Input Capacity (BTU/hr)
45,000 to 59,999 $279.00 $210.00
60,000 to 74,999 $370.00 $275.00
75,000 to 99,999 $460.00 $345.00
100,000 to 124,999 $620.00 $460.00
125,000 to 149,999 $775.00 $575.00
150,000 to 199,999 $930.00 $690.00
200,000 and greater $1,240.00 $920.00
To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must return
applications/forms to the Company by no later than December 3, 1999 Projects
must be completed and all invoices requested by the Company submitted and all
verifications performed should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000 Funding will only be available for the above measures on
existing facilities and where installation is not required by local energy efficiency
codes or where no such code exists, measures approved for funding must meet or
exceed "standard industry practices" as determined by the Company. Total utility
cost over the 3 year period is $401,000. Designated program funding will expire
on December 3, 1999.
Savings. Projected savings for the 3 year period is 5.9 million kWh.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 9
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
I
I
. .
Program Trade Ally
Description The Company will work with Customers and Trade Allies to identify energy
savings projects that in the Company's opinion are not occurring due to
identifiable market barriers To qualify for assistance under this tariff, the
Applicant must have done the following a) identified or be actively working with
a contractor to identify an energy efficiency project b) selected a contractor(s) that
will perform services or provide equipment for the energy efficiency project The
Company, at its discretion will provide assistance to overcome market barriers
that may include any of the following
The Trade Ally Program is divided into three components that customers may
choose to utilize They are outlined as follows
Technical-Link will provide the customer with a third-party review of their
project and may include the following services:
* Lending of diagnostic tools to customers to monitor how energy is used
and consumed in their place of business
* Comprehensive design review
* Verification of estimated energy savings
* Pre- and Post-metering to verify energy savings
Financial-Link will offer a lending program for businesses in order to provide
capital funding for energy-efficiency projects. The Financial-Link benefits may
include:
* Low cost financing
* Engineering and financial reviews
* Reduced loan costs and collateral requirements
* Information about other funding opportunities (i.e.: governmental
agencies)
Educational-Link will offer seminars and other materials about the changing
industry, new technologies and pertinent issues. Other services may include but
are not limited to:
* "How To" information
* On-line energy savings models for energy efficient equipment selection
* Do-it yourself energy audits
Availability: All commercial customers receiving electric service under tariff Schedule 011,
021, 25, 26, 31 or special contract for electric service.
Funding: Various funding alternatives are available. Customers may benefit from one or
more of the following options:
* Design review services up to $1,500.
Loan fees of up to $500
The maximum amount of funding a customer may acquire per site, per year is
$2,000 Total utility cost estimated for the 3 year period is $879,000 Designated
program funding will expire on December 3, 1999.
Savings Projected savings for the 3 year period isll4 million kWh.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 10
1997-1999
rev. 10/17196
. .
Program: Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP)
Description The RMPP will promote resource savings and demonstrate the cost effectiveness
of improved operations and maintenance within existing facilities Participating
customers must agree to continue operations and monitoring efforts upon the
expiration of the RMPP position through the adoption of resource policy
guidelines incorporating the guidelines into "standard practice" building
operations The Company will provide customers with the option of selecting a
shared savings approach with a guarantee that program savings cover the costs
associated with the program Customers may also choose to have WWP provide
services to implement the program and on-going support without the guarantee
Availability Commercial and industrial customers receiving electric service under tariff
Schedule 11, 21, 25, 26 or special contract for electric service which includes
demand side management system rates Customers choosing the guarantee option
will be required to have a combination of buildings with $1 million dollars worth
of resource expenses and at least 2 million square feet of building space
Customers not choosing the guarantee option will be evaluated on a site-by-site
basis Non-profit agencies, school districts, office buildings, universities, hotels
and restaurant chains may be the primary focus, with consideration to be given to
all who apply. A special effort will be made to generate program participation
interest with non-profit agencies
Funding Total utility cost estimated for the 3 year program is $447,000 The funding
amount includes an estimated amount to cover a portion of the guaranteed salary
and expenses not covered by the reduction in resource costs Designated program
funding will expire on December 3, 1999.
Savings Projected savings for the 3 year period is 75 million kWh Program results will
be based on measured savings compared to established baseline resource usage
levels.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 11
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
S .
Program: Energy 2000
Description: This market transformation program combines new energy efficiency products and
opportunities for both residential and commercial and industrial customers to
explore. The program is divided into two parts: Home Automation and New
Technologies.
Home Automation
This program will attempt to demonstrate the potential of 'Home Automation" to
benefit residential customers. The purpose is to explore the use of Home
Automation technology that will enhance energy efficiency and comfort in the
home.
Availability: Due to the experimental basis of this program, the Company will work in
conjunction with regional home shows and area developers to select new
construction and existing home sites that receive service under tariff Schedule 01.
The company will select 7 test sites over Washington and Idaho service territories,
in both new and existing homes, in price ranges from under $100,000 to $250,000.
The automation system may include some or all of the following: monitoring and
control of furnaces, cooling systems, indoor and outdoor lighting, hot water heater,
link to existing security system, a phone dial-in monitoring and control capability,
and an energy meter to indicate the energy cost in a visual display on the premises.
The processing unit of the automation system should be re-programmable for
system upgrades. The display would be either on a TV or a LCD unit.
Funding: The budget for the each home automation project will be based on a 10 year
simple payback at 30% energy savings. For example, if a home consumes an
estimated average energy costs of $200 a month, the home automation budget will
be $200 x 30% x 12 months x 10 Years = $7,200. This $7,200 will be the total
budget for installation and material for the automation system. Designated
program funding will expire on December 3, 1999.
Savings: Projected savings for the 3 year period is 50,400 kWh.
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 12 1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
. S
Program: Energy 2000 (continued)
New Technologies
This program will provide an alternative funding mechanism to promote and
encourage the implementation of new product and technologies to the WWP
service area The goal is to shorten adaptation time of these products into the
customer's site The technology should be proven, provide energy savings, be
environmentally friendly and create regional economic stimulation. Technologies
currently available in the marketplace include LED traffic lights, T-5 lighting
systems, and Microwave industrial dryers
Due to the unique weather, economy and environmental conditions in the Inland
Northwest, many technologies that are developed are not proven to operate well in
this part of the country as in others Another program component for New
Technologies to provide research funds to local institutions, schools, consulting
firms, manufacturers, or individuals to do energy related research project to
benefit WWP customers and regional programs Samples of topics already under
consideration include renewable resources applications, electric vehicles and
Optimized Energy Management Systems with an Outside Air Control algorithm
for Inland Northwest weather condition
Availability Commercial and industrial customers receiving electric service under tariff
Schedule 011, 021, 025 and 026 or special contract which include demand side
management system rates Customers may apply for participation through the
same application process as the Site Specific Program.
Funding Customers will receive $0 10 per kWh or 50% of the total cost, whichever is lower
with a cap of $75,000 per site for the installation of new products or technologies
Designated program funding will expire on December 3, 1999 Projects must be
completed, all invoices requested by the Company submitted and all verifications
necessary to process the incentive should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000.
Total utility cost estimated for the 3 year period for both components is $993,000.
Savings: Projected savings for the 3 year period is 3 million kWh.
I
WWP Energy Efficiency Program
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
S .
Program: Northwest Energy Efficiency Partnership
Description: This regional market transformation program will focus on supplying products
services or technologies that will assist residential and commercial customers in
improving the use of electric resources WWP along with other participating
utilities and organizations will make the customers aware of product information
and availability.
Existing Regional Programs **
Compact Fluorescent Manufacturers Rebate - residential
High Efficiency MAP Inspection Support - residential
Technical Assistance Support (FAS) - residential/commercial
Energy Ideas Clearinghouse - residential/commercial
Seattle Lighting Design Lab - residential/commercial & industrial
Utility Code Group Support - commercial
**The Company currently contributes to the sponsorship of these programs
Potential Regional Programs
Compact Fluorescent Fixture Rebate - residential
Cleaner Northwest High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program - residential
Motor Transformation - commercial/industrial
Home Energy Rating System - residential
Building Operator Certification - commercial
Energy Products Catalog - residential/coniniercial & industrial
Availability: All residential, commercial or industrial customers receiving electric service.
Funding: Total utility cost estimated for electric costs over the 3 year period is $3.1 million
dollars Designated program funding will expire on December 3, 1999
Savings Projected savings for the 3 year period is 144 million kWh
WWP Energy Efficiency Program 14
1997-1999
rev. 10/17/96
.

.
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT B
PROPOSED ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFFS
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
. Nineteenth Revision Sh B
Cance..
I.P.U.C. No. 25 Eighteenth Revision Sheet B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
INDEX PAGE - IDAHO
Schedule Sheet
No. Title of Sheet
TitlePage..............................................................................................................A
IndexPage............................................................................................................B
1 Residential Service-Idaho......................................................................................1
11 General Service .................................................................................................. 11
12 Residential and Farm General Service-Idaho ...................................................... 12
21 Large General Service-Idaho ............................................................................... 21
22 Residential and Farm Large General Service-Idaho............................................. 22
25 Extra Large General Service-Idaho ..................................................................... 25
27 Extra Large High Voltage Service-Idaho.............................................................. 27
31 Pumping Service-Idaho....................................................................................... 31
32 Residential and Farm Pumping Service-Idaho..................................................... 32
33 Irrigation Discount Rate-Idaho............................................................................. 33
41 Company Owned Street Light Service-Idaho....................................................... 41
42 Company Owned Street Light Service-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor-Idaho......... 42
43 Customer Owned Street Light Energy & Maintenance Service-Idaho................... 43
44 Customer Owned Street Light Energy & Maintenance Service-High-Pressure
SodiumVapor..................................................................................................... 44
45 Customer Owned Street Light Energy Service-Idaho........................................... 45
46 Customer Owned Street Light Energy Service-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor ...... 46
47 Area Lighting-Idaho-Mercury Vapor..................................................................... 47
48 Residential and Farm Area Lighting-Idaho........................................................... 48
49 Area Lighting-Idaho-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor............................................... 49
Miscellaneous Schedules
51 Line Extension, Conversion, and Relocation Schedule ........................................ 51
53 Temporary Service.............................................................................................. 53
54 Line Extension and Conversion Schedule for Local Improvement Districts ........... 54
58 Tax Adjustment Schedule.................................................................................... 58
59 Residential and Farm Energy Rate Adjustment-Idaho.......................................... 59
62 Small Power Production and Cogeneration.......................................................... 62
63 Solar Domestic Water Heating Demonstration Program ..................................... 63
66 Temporary Power Cost Adjustment-Idaho........................................................... 66
67 Energy Efficiency Service for New Residential
Buildings............................................................................................................. 67
Rulesand Regulations ........................................................................................ 70
81 Residential Service - Wallace, Mullan and Burke ............................................... 81
82 General Service - Wallace, Mullan and Burke .................................................... 82
90 Electric Energy Efficiency Programs.................................................................... 90
91 Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment - Idaho ......................................................... 91
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The W ington Water Power Company
By II.NJ 7 Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
Fifth Revision Sheets 90
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Fourth Revision Sheet 90
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90
ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
IDAHO
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Section Tariff Sheet
Purpose 90
Availability 90A
Definitions 90A
Programs
Manufactured Housing Acquisition Program (MAP) 90C
Limited Income Residential Energy Efficiency 90D
HVAC System Efficiency 90E
Energy 2000 90F
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific 90G
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific Prescriptive Variable 901
Frequency Drives for Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific Prescriptive Variable 901
Frequency Drives for Lumber Dry Kilns Fan Motors
Commercial Prescriptive Lighting Rebate Program 90K
Commercial Prescriptive Fuel Switching Rebate 90M
Trade Ally 90N
Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP) 900
Regional Energy Efficiency Programs 90P
General Rules and Provisions 90Q
PURPOSE
To promote efficient use of energy by providing partial funding for the
installation of energy efficiency measures and by providing other services to
Customers for the purpose of identification and implementation of cost-effective
energy efficiency measures. The acquisition of resources is cost-effective as
defined by a Total Resource Cost test (TRC) and is consistent with the
Company's most recently filed Integrated Resource Plan.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By 11s (i' Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Fifth Revision Sheet 9 90A
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Fourth Revision Sheet 90A
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
AVAILABILITY
The programs described herein are available to specified residential,
commercial, and industrial Customers. The programs are available to Owners of
these facilities, and also may be provided to tenants who have obtained
appropriate Owner consent.
Funding provided under this schedule is limited to end uses where electricity
is the energy source and to measures which increase the efficient use of
electricity. Customer participation under this schedule shall be based on
eligibility requirements contained herein.
DEFINITIONS
The following terms, when used in this schedule, shall have the meanings
given below:
Agency. A non-profit group authorized by state authorities to receive
funds for installation of weatherization materials in dwellings occupied by
Limited Income Customers.
Contractor. A party other than the Company or the Customer who is
retained to evaluate the energy efficiency savings opportunities at the
Customer's facility or to install measures under a specific program.
Customer. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association,
governmental agency, political subdivision, municipality, or other entity
who has applied for, been accepted, and is currently receiving firm retail
electric service from the Company. The Customer may or may not be the
Owner of the dwelling or facility receiving electric service, but nonetheless
has a legal right to occupy the dwelling or facility either through ownership,
or a lease or rental agreement.
Direct Administrative Costs. The Company's direct costs of
administering programs, including, but not limited to, costs associated with
audits, analysis, Customer proposals, oversight & inspections,
management and supervision, training, and promotion specific to the
measure or Program.
Full Avoided Cost. The cost the Company would incur to acquire power
from a source other than energy efficiency measures, adjusted for credits
for line loss savings and other benefits.
Identifiable Market Barriers. Any condition or constraint that prevents a
Customer from implementing a cost-effective energy efficiency option
Issued October 24, Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Fourth Revision Sheet 90B
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Third Revision Sheet 90B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
including short pay back requirement, lack of capital, perceived risk of
energy savings, or other barriers that might be removed or lessened by
utility intervention.
Incremental Measure Cost. The incremental cost of a energy efficiency
measure in excess of the cost of a measure and/or design required to
satisfy existing codes or conforming with existing construction or
equipment replacement standard practices.
Limited Income. Single-family residential households in which the
combined annual income of the Occupants is not greater than 125% of the
federally-established poverty level. Limited Income also means
households in duplexes and triplexes where at least 50% of the
households meet this limited income guideline, and fourplexes and other
multi-family dwellings where at least 50% of the households meet this
limited income guideline.
Measure Cost. The known and measurable costs to all parties of
purchasing and installing the measure at the facility site, including the
costs of audits and engineering studies performed to assess the
opportunities for energy efficiency measures.
Measure Life. The maximum tern, (in years) that the Company will
assume savings can be expected to occur from the measure. The value of
Measure Life may be lower than the average life expectancy of the
equipment/materials related to the measure, due to uncertainty of
continuing savings over that period.
Measurement and Evaluation Costs. Costs incurred for each program to
study, survey, and otherwise analytically assess the impacts of the
program by determining energy savings achieved from the program and
estimating the cost-effectiveness of those savings.
Net Avoided Cost. The Full Avoided cost reduced by the Direct
Administrative Costs and the Measurement and Evaluation Costs
associated with the program.
Owner. The person who has legal title to the dwelling or facility, is the
mortgagor under a duly recorded mortgage of real property, is the trustor
under a duly recorded deed of trust, is a purchaser under a duly recorded
contract for the purchase of real property, or has legal title to a mobile
home.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The WastlLngton Water Power Company
By '? .,A .(,ç Mana9erI Rates & Tariff Administration
Second Revision Sheet 90C

I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90C
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
Prescriptive. A pre-established funding or energy savings amount for a
measure that is not individually or differently computed for each participant
in a program.
Site. A geographically contiguous facility or group of facilities owned or
operated by the Customer, served by the Company with one or more
electric meters.
Site Specific. Funding for each participant in a program that is
determined using an estimate of savings determined for each site.
Three year period. January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999.
Trade Ally. A third-party vendor, energy service company, distributor,
engineer, architect, consultant, or other business that recommends,
designs, supplies, or installs energy-saving equipment or provides energy
related services.
PROGRAM: MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACQUISITION PROGRAM (MAP)
Availability. To manufacturers of new HUD-Code manufactured (mobile)
housing which also meets the Bonneville Power Administrations regional
MAP specifications and receives electric service from the Company under
tariff Schedule 01 for space heating. Determinations of qualification for
MAP are made by state energy offices.
2.Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under
this oroaram are as follows:
Measure Measure Life
All components and construction of the 30 years
manufactured housing meeting MAP regional
3.Analysis. Savings for MAP homes are determined Prescriptively based
upon calculations performed during development of this regional program.
4.Funding. The Company will pay $1,500 to the manufacturer of each
qualifying map home (constructed on or after October 25, 1994) and
$2,500 for MAP homes constructed or on after April 1, 1992 but prior to
October 25, 1994 in addition to a $150 per home administrative payment to
the Bonneville Power Administration. In order to receive payment, homes
must be manufactured by July 26, 1995 and sited on or before January 26,

1997. Total utility cost for the three-year period is estimated at
$2.27 million.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued byThe W ington Water Power Company
By 7 Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Second Revision Sheet 90D
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90D
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: LIMITED INCOME RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
1.Availability. To any Owner of a residential dwelling in which a Limited
Income Customer receives electric service from the Company under tariff
Schedule 01. The dwelling must utilize electric space heating equipment
as the primary source of space conditioning. The Limited Income
Customer must also use at least 4,000 kWh's per year for space
conditioning in order to qualify for this program. The Agency will qualify
Customers for assistance under this program using the federal limited
income guidelines.
2.Measures. Company-approved measures eligible for installation under
this program are as follows:
Measure Measure Ufe
Infiltration control 10 years
Set-Back Thermostat 10 years
Water Heater Wrap 10 years
Electric space heat to natural gas 25 years
Electric water heat to natural gas 25 years
Ceiling insulation 30 years
Wall insulation 30 years
Floor insulation 30 years
Whenever possible, the replaced electric equipment, for which the
Customer is receiving funding, shall be removed and destroyed. If the
equipment cannot be removed, then the heating function will be disabled.
3.Analysis. A Site Specific or Prescriptive analysis will be performed to
estimate energy savings levels of measures prior to installation. For
qualifying Limited Income Customers, the Agency will perform the analysis.
4.Funding. Upon completion of the installation of measures, the Company
will reimburse the Agency as follows:
Measure Funding Level
Weatherization $0.40 cents/kWh
Space Heat Conversion $0.23 cents/kWh
Water Heat Conversion $650.00
Total utility cost estimated for the 3-year period is $1,767,000. Designated
program funding will expire on December 3, 1999. Projects must be
completed and all invoices and verification necessary to process Customer
grants should be received by the Company on or before December 3,
1999.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Was ngton Water Power Company
By 7> , Manaer, Rates & Tariff Administration
Third Revision Sheet9• 90E
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90E
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: HVAC SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
1.Availability. Available to any residential Customer with a ducted HVAC
system who receives electric service under tariff Schedule 01.
2.Description. This program is designed to improve residential HVAC
system efficiency by reducing energy losses associated with leaky duct
systems and poor furnace filter maintenance.
The duct sealing program will include two components; one for new
homes and one for retrofits. The new home component will allow builders
of new homes with ducts in unconditioned areas to voluntarily submit the
home to a duct blaster test. Homes that meet a minimum performance
criteria will earn the right to advertise their home as a "Energy Efficiency
Duct Home". There will be no direct incentives provided under this
component of the program.
The retrofit component will be open to any existing home with ducts
in unconditioned areas. The program will provide the homeowner with a
$50 direct incentive for pressure panning their home. For homes not
meeting pressure pan specifications, an additional $200 incentive up to a
maximum of 50% of job cost, will be awarded for duct sealing.
The furnace filter component of the HVAC System Efficiency
Program will focus on increasing the energy efficiency of HVAC systems
through the proper maintenance of furnace filters. The program will include
an educational component to disseminate information concerning the
energy, health and comfort benefits of proper furnace filter replacements
and the different kinds of furnace filters. This component will also include
the distribution of filter change reminder aids which may include calendar
markers and refrigerator magnets that include the scheduled date for the
next change.
3.Funding. Total utility cost for the 3-year period is $342,000. Designated
program funding will expire on December 3, 1999.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Wapikington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 1 Third Revision Sheet 4 90F
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90F
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: ENERGY 2000
Home Automation
1.Availability. Due to the experimental basis of this program, the Company
will work in conjunction with regional home shows and area developers to
select new construction and existing home sites that receive service under
tariff Schedule 01. The company will select 7 test sites over Washington
and Idaho service territories, in both new and existing homes, in price
ranges from under $100,000 to $250,000.
The automation system may include some or all of the following:
monitoring and control of furnaces, cooling systems, indoor and outdoor
lighting, hot water heaters, links to existing security systems, phone dial-in
monitoring and control capabilities, and energy metering to indicate the
energy costs on visual displays on the premises. The processing units of
the automation systems should be re-programmable for system upgrades.
The displays would be either on TVs or LCD units.
2.Description. This program will attempt to demonstrate the potential of
"Home Automation" to benefit residential Customers. The purpose is to
explore the use of Home Automation technologies that will enhance energy
efficiency and comfort in the home.
3.Funding. The budget for each home automation project will be based on a
10-year Simple payback at 30% energy savings. For example, if a home
consumes an estimated average energy cost of $200 a month, the home
automation budget will be $200 x 30% x 12 months x 10 Years = $7200.
Designated program funding will expire on December 3, 1999.
New Technologies
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 011, 021, 025 and 026 or special contract
which include energy efficiency system rates or any Owner or Developer
developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will receive service
under tariff Schedule 011, 021, 025 and 026 or special contract which
include energy efficiency system rates. Customers may apply for
participation through the same application process as the Site Specific
Program.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The W ington Water f5r Company
By , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
Second Revision Sheet 90G
Cancelling
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90G
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
2.Description. This program will provide an alternative funding mechanism
to promote and encourage the implementation of new products and
technologies to the WWP service area. The goal is to shorten adaptation
time of these products into the Customer's site. The technologies should
be proven, provide energy savings, be environmentally friendly and create
regional economic stimulation. Technologies currently available in the
marketplace include LED traffic lights, T-5 lighting systems, and Microwave
industrial dryers.
Due to the unique weather, economy and environmental conditions
in the Inland Northwest, many technologies that are developed are not
proven to operate well in this part of the country as in others. Another
program component for new technologies to provide research funds to
local institutions, schools, consulting firms, manufacturers, or individuals to
do energy related research project to benefit WWP customers and regional
programs. Samples of topics already under consideration include
renewable resources applications, electric vehicles and optimized energy
management systems with an outside air control algorithm for Inland
Northwest weather condition.
3.Funding. Customers will receive $0.10 per kWh or 50% of the total cost,
whichever is lower with a cap of $75,000 per site for the installation of new
products or technologies. Designated program funding will expire on
December 3, 1999. Projects must be completed, all invoices requested by
the Company submitted and all verifications necessary to process the
incentive should be received by the Company on or before December 4,
2000. Total utility cost estimated for Home Automation and New
Technologies combined for the 3-year period is $993,000.
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26 31, or special contract for electric
service which includes energy efficiency system rates, or any Owner or
Developer developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will
receive service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, 31, or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency rates.
October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
by The War4pton Water R?<r any
By LI ; L., Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration

Third Revision Sheet 90H
Canc
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
2.Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under
this program are as follows:
Measure Measure Life
HVAC and Refrigeration
HVAC and Refrigeration - Unitary 10 years
HVAC and Refrigeration - Central 15 years
Heat Recovery 15 years
Chillers 20 years
Controls
Energy Management Systems 10 years
Direct Digital Control Systems 10 years
Lighting Control Systems 10 years
SCADA Systems 10 years
Process and Other Miscellaneous Control
Systems
10 years
Motors and Drives
Variable Frequency Drives 15 years
Fan, Compressor and Pump Systems 15 years
Process Fuel Switching 15 years
Other Motor and Drive Systems 15 years
Other Process
Other Process Efficiency Improvements 15 years
Additional Measures may qualify for funding under this program. Such
determination shall be at the discretion of the Company. All measures
approved for funding shall exceed local energy efficiency codes or, where
no such code exits, shall meet or exceed "standard industry practices" as
determined by the Company.
3.Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must do one
of the following prior to December 3, 1999: 1) begin development of a
Company approved engineering analysis in accordance with a Company
approved scope of work; or 2) receive formal acceptance from the
Company of an engineering analysis of savings potential performed at the
Applicant's direction and expense; or 3) match savings measures with
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The
By
Vashington Water Power Company
Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration 7> V
Third Revision Sheet -40 901
LP.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 901
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
Company approved prescriptive measures and return applications/forms to
the Company. In addition, projects must be completed and all invoices
requested by the Company from the Customer and all verifications
necessary to process Customer grants should be received by the Company
on or before December 4, 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a Site
Specific basis equal to the lesser of 1) 50% of the Incremental Measure
cost or 2) an amount equal to Company approved estimated first-year kWh
savings times $0.05 per kWh.
Funding from the Company will also include up to 100% of the cost
of any Site Specific studies or services performed at the Company's
direction by the Company or a qualified Engineer or Contractor on the
Applicant's behalf for projects which are ultimately completed. Such
studies or services costs shall not exceed $0.12 times the square footage
of the facility under study, as determined by the Company.
For projects that are not ultimately completed, the Company funding
for such Site Specific studies or services shall not exceed 50% of cost of
such studies or services. The Applicant shall remain responsible for the
remaining costs of such studies or services.
Total utility cost for the 3-year period is $3,076,000 dollars.
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC PRESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES FOR HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR
CONDITIONING
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for electric
service which includes energy efficiency system rates, or any Owner or
Developer developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will
receive service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency system rates.
2.Measures. Measures qualifying are new Variable Frequency Drives
(VFD5) for new electric motors or existing electric motors where no such
Drive previously existed, used to drive heating, ventilating and air
conditioning fans, heating pumps, cooling pumps or combined heating and
cooling pumps.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The W ington Water Power Company
By r1 , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administrationr JV
Fourth Revision Sheets 901
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Third Revision Sheet 90J
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
3.Analysis. Savings for VFDs are determined Prescriptively by size and end
use of the electric motor driven by the VFD using standard engineering
practices and methods.
4.Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must match
savings with Company approved prescriptive measures and return
applications/forms to the Company by no later than December 3, 1999. In
addition, projects must be completed and all invoices requested by the
Company from the Customer and all verifications necessary to process
Customer grants should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a
Prescriptive basis as follows not to exceed 50% of the actual installed cost
of the Variable Frequency Drive:
Maximum $ Per Horsepower of
HVAC Equipment Driven by VFD
HVAC Fan Motors $50.00
HVAC Cooling Pump Motors $55.00
HVAC Heating Pump Only or Combined Heating and
Cooling Pump Motors $85.00
Funding amounts are subject to change as determined by the Company's
energy savings evaluations and market changes affecting the costs of
Variable Frequency Drives. Funding for this program is provided as a
portion of the Commercial/Industrial Site Specific (Electric Efficiency)
program.
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC - PRESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES FOR LUMBER DRY KILNS FAN MOTORS
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for electric
service which includes energy efficiency system rates, or any Owner or
Developer developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will
receive service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency system rates.
2.Measures. Measures qualifying are new Variable Frequency Drives
(VFDs) for new electric motors or existing electric motors where no such
Drive previously existed, used to drive Lumber Dry Kiln Fans.
Issued October 24, 1996 January 1, 1997
Issued by The Wa ington Water Power Company
By cl> 0 Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
JW 00A041

0 Second Revision Sheet
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision 90K
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
3. Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must match
savings with Company approved prescriptive measures and return
applications/forms to the Company no later than December 3, 1999. In
addition, projects must be completed and all invoices requested by the
Company from the Customer and all verifications necessary to process
Customer grants should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a
Prescriptive basis not to exceed 50% of the actual installed cost of the
Variable Frequency Drive or $120.00 per kilowatt (kW) saved as
determined by the Company.
Funding amounts are subject to change as determined by the
Company's energy savings evaluations and market changes affecting the
costs of Variable Frequency Drives for Lumber Dry Kiln applications.
Funding for this program is provided as a portion of the CommerciaLl
Industrial Site Specific (Electric Efficiency) program.
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING REBATE PROGRAM
1.Availability. To any commercial Customer receiving electric service under
tariff Schedule 11.
2.Description. This program will provide direct incentives to Customers who
perform lighting retrofit projects. Funding will only be available for lighting
retrofit projects on existing facilities and where installation is not required
by local energy efficiency codes or, where no such code exists, lighting
measures approved for funding must meet or exceed "standard industry
practices" as determined by the Company.
3.Funding. Company funding under this program is limited to $3,000 per
site, per year. Minimum funding shall be $200.00 per project to qualify.
The Company will not fund the cost of Site Specific studies or analyses
under this program. To qualify for funding under this tariff, all applications
to this program must be fully completed and returned to the Company by
the due date stated on the application. Total utility cost over the period
1997 through 1999 is $404,000 and will be provided under this tariff in
WWP's combined Washington and Idaho service areas. The Company will
rebate to Customers at the following levels:

Issued October 24, 1 January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By r_(~ q0 Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Second Revision Sheet 4 90L
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90L
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
Measure Measure Life Rebate!
unit
Compact Fluorescent:
Hardwired Ballast 10 years $10
Lamp w/Locking Ballast 10 years $10
4 Foot T-8 Lamps & Electronic Ballast:
ILamp 12 years $5
2 Lamp 12 years $5
3 Lamp 12 years $10
4Lamp 12 yea $10
8 Foot T-8 Lamps & Electronic Ballast:
I Lamp 12 years $5
2 Lamp 12 years $10
Reflector/Delamp (retrofit only):
4 Foot (per lamp removed) 12 years $5
8 Foot (per lamp removed) 12 years $10
Interior HID (excludes mercury vapor):
Otoloowafts l2 years $30
Up to 175 watts 12 years $30
176 watts or greater 12 years $30
Exterior HID (excludes mercury vapor):
Otoloowatts 12 years $15
Up to 175 watts 12 years $15
176 watts or greater 12 years $15
Exit Sign (must be Energy Star compliant) 12 years $15
Occupancy Sensor
72 - 350 watts connected load 10 years $20
351 - 1000 watts connected load 10 years $35
1001 watts or more connected load 10 years $50
Daylight Sensor/Controls
72 - 350 watts connected load 10 years $10
351-1000 watts connected load 10 years $20
1001 watts or more connected load 10 years $30
October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. .
NO. 25 Orlainal Sheet 90M
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL PRESCRIPTIVE FUEL SWITCHING REBATE
1.Availability. To any commercial Customer receiving electric service under
tariff Schedule 11.
2.Description. This program will facilitate acquisition of low interest loans to
Customers for capital expenditure associated with switching from electric to
natural gas as the primary fuel for space heating. The program will work in
partnership with local financial institutions to provide market rate loans to
credit worthy Customers. The Company will purchase the loan interest
liability from the lending financial institution. The Company-approved
measures eligible for installation under this program must have end use
efficiencies of at least 80% and must meet current state or federal minimum
efficiency requirements.
3.Funding. The Company will provide funding to purchase loan interest
liability from the lending financial institution. This funding will be provided
as follows:
Electric Heating System Maximum
Input Capacity (BTU/hr) Funding
45,000 to 59,999 $279.00
60,000 to 74,999 $370.00
75,000 to 99,999 $460.00
100,000 to 124,999 $620.00
125,000 to 149,999 $775.00
150,000 to 199,999 $930.00
200,000 and greater $1,240.00
To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must return
applications/forms to the Company by no later than December 3, 1999.
Projects must be completed and all invoice s requested by the Company
submitted and all verifications performed should be received by the
Company on or before December 4, 2000. Funding will only be available
for the above measures on existing facilitie and where installation is not
required by local energy efficiency codes oi r, where no such code exists,
measures approved for funding must meet or exceed "standard industry
practices" as determined by the Company. Total utility cost over the three-
year period is $401,000.
Issued October 24, 1996 January 1, 1997
Issued by The Wa ton Water CWpany
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
S
[I.1]
I.P.U.C. NO. 25
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: TRADE ALLY
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 11, 21, 25, 26, 31 or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency system rates or any
Owner or Developer developing a new commercial or industrial facility that
will receive service under tariff Schedule 11, 21, 25, 26, 31 or special
contract which include energy efficiency system rates.
2.Description. The Company will work with Customers and Trade Allies to
identify energy efficiency projects that in the Company's opinion are not
occurring due to identifiable market barriers. To qualify for assistance
under this tariff, the Applicant must have done the following: a) identified
or be actively working with a contractor to identify an energy efficiency
project b) selected a contractor(s) that will perform services or provide
equipment for the energy efficiency project. The Company, at its discretion
will provide assistance to overcome market barriers that may include any of
the following:
Technical-Link will provide the Customer with a third-party review of their
project and may include the following services:
* Comprehensive design review
* Verification of estimated energy savings
* Pre- and Post-metering to verify energy savings
* Lending of diagnostic tools to Customers to monitor how energy is
used and consumed in their place of business
Financial-Link will offer a lending program for businesses in order to
provide capital funding for energy-efficiency projects. The Financial-Link
benefits may include:
* Low cost financing
* Engineering and financial reviews
* Reduced loan costs and collateral requirements
Educational-Link will offer seminars and other materials about the
changing industry, new technologies and pertinent issues. Other services
may include but are not limited to:
*"How To" information
* On-line energy savings models for energy efficient equipment
selection
* Do-it-yourself energy audits
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Wa ington Water Power Company
By Manager Rates & Tariff Administration
3
ii
I.P.U.C. NO. 25
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
3. Funding. Various funding alternatives are available. Customers may
benefit from one or more of the following options:
* Design review services up to $1,500.
* Loan fees of up to $500.
The maximum amount of funding a Customer may acquire per site, per
year is $2,000. Total utility cost for the 3-year period is $879,000.
PROGRAM: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (RMPP)
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 11, 21, 25, 26 or special contract for electric
service or any Owner or Developer developing a new commercial or
industrial facility that will receive service under tariff Schedule 11, 21, 25,
26, or special contract for electric service which includes energy efficiency
system rates with a combination of buildings with $1 million dollars worth of
resource expenses and at least 2 million square feet of building space.
Non-profit agencies, school districts, office buildings, universities, hotels
and restaurant chains may be the primary focus; with consideration to be
given to all who apply. A special effort will be made to generate the
interest of multiple non-profit agencies in participating in the program.
2.Description. The RMPP will promote resource savings and demonstrate
the cost effectiveness of improved operations and maintenance within
existing facilities. Participating Customers must agree to continue
operations and monitoring efforts upon the expiration of the RMPP position
through the adoption of resource policy guidelines incorporating the
guidelines into "standard practice" building operations. The Company will
provide Customers with the option of selecting a shared savings approach
with a guarantee that program savings cover the costs associated with the
program. Customers may also choose to have WWP provide services to
implement the program and on-going support without the guarantee.
3.Funding. Total utility cost estimated for the 3-year program is $447,000.
The funding amount includes an estimated amount to cover a portion of the
guaranteed salary and expenses not covered by the reduction in resource
costs.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by T pany he Wa gton Water P
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
.

gop
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Oriainal Sheet 90P
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PARTNERSHIP
1.Availability. To any residential, commercial or industrial Customer
receiving electric service
2.Description. This regional program focuses on supplying products,
services or technologies that will assist residential and commercial
customers in improving the use of electric resources. WWP along with
other participating utilities and organizations will make the customers
aware of product information and availability.
Existing Regional Programs **
Compact Fluorescent Manufacturers Rebate - residential
High Efficiency MAP Inspection Support - residential
Technical Assistance Support (TAS) - residential/commercial
Energy Ideas Clearinghouse - residential/commercial
Seattle Lighting Design Lab - residential/commercial & industrial
Utility Code Group Support - commercial
The Company currently contributes to the sponsorship of these programs.
Potential Regional Programs
Compact Fluorescent Fixture Rebate - residential
Cleaner Northwest High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program - residential
Motor Transformation - commercial/industrial
Home Energy Rating System - residential
Building Operator Certification - commercial
Energy Products Catalog - residential/commercial & industrial
3.Funding. Total utility cost estimated for electric costs over the 3-year
period is $3,108,000. Designated program funding will expire on
December 3, 1999.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By
'>
Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. .
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Oriainal Sheet 900
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
GENERAL RULES AND PROVISIONS
Service under this schedule is subject to the General Rules and Provisions
contained in this tariff and is limited to facilities receiving electric service from the
Company.
All installations and equipment must comply with all local code and permit
requirements applicable and be properly inspected, if required, by appropriate
agencies.
The Company may establish specifications regarding any energy efficiency
measures and modifications to be effected under this schedule and may conduct
inspections to insure that such specifications are met.
In addition to other funding limits that may exist in specific programs under this
tariff, commercial and industrial Customers participating in any
commercial/industrial programs in this tariff shall be limited to receiving $100,000
per calendar year per Site for funding per qualifying projects by the Company.
Excess funding amounts not paid can be carried over into the following calendar
year for payment by the Company, but will be subject to this funding limitation. In
no event will the Company pay more than $200,000 per individual project.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By 'L> , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 First Revision She 91
Cance
I.P.U.C. No. 25 Original Sheet 91
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 91
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER ADJUSTMENT - IDAHO
APPLICABLE:
To Customers in the State of Idaho where the Company has electric service
available except for Sandpoint, Priest River, Hope, East Hope, Old Town and
immediately surrounding areas. This Energy Efficiency Rider or Rate Adjustment
shall be applicable to all retail customers for charges for electric energy sold and
to the flat rate charges for Company-owned or Customer-owned Street Lighting
and Area Lighting Service. This Rate Adjustment is designed to recover costs
incurred by the Company associated with providing energy efficiency services and
programs to customers.
MONTHLY RATE:
The energy charges of the individual rate schedules are to be increased by
the following amounts:
Schedule 1 - .0680 per kWh Schedule 25 - .0420 per kWh
Schedule 11 & 12 - .1030 per kWh Schedule 26 - .0420 per kWh
Schedule 21 & 22 - .0720 per kWh Schedule 31 & 32 - .0630 per kWh
Flat rate charges for Company-owned or Customer-owned Street Lighting
and Area Lighting Service are to be increased by 1.503%.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Service under this schedule is subject to the Rules and Regulations
contained in this tariff.
The above Rate is subject to increases as set forth in Tax Adjustment
Schedule 58.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The W ngton Water Power Company
By .4 Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. Twelfth Revision Sh
Cance
I.P.U.C. No. 26 Eleventh Revision Sheet B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
INDEX PAGE - IDAHO
Schedule Sheet
No. Title of Sheet No.
TitlePage........................................................................................ A
Index . .............................................................................................. B
Definition of Rate Area.................................................................... C
101 General Service - Firm - Idaho . ...................................................... 101
111 Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ............................................. 111
112 Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ............................................. 112
121 High Annual Load Factor Large General Service - Firm - Idaho 121
122 High Annual Load Factor Large General Service - Firm - Idaho 122
131 Interruptible Service- Idaho (Off Peak) .......................................... 131
132 Interruptible Service - Idaho (Off Peak) .......................................... 132
140 Incremental Pricing Surcharge Rate - Idaho . . . . . . ....................... 140
142 Incentive Gas Credit - Idaho........................................................... 142
146 Transportation Service for Customer-Owned Gas.......................... 146
149 Special Purchase Gas Cost Adjustment - Idaho............................. 149
150 Purchase Gas Cost Adjustment - Idaho.......................................... 150
151 Gas Extension and Relocation Schedule........................................ 151
153 Temporary Service ......................................................................... 153
154 Rural Gas Service Connections...................................................... 154
155 Gas Rate Adjustment...................................................................... 155
158 Tax Adjustment Schedule ............................................................... 158
Rules and Regulations.................................................................... 170
Contingency Plan for Firm Service Gas Curtailment . ..................... 182
191 Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment - Idaho ................................... 191
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Wa gton Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration JVi
S First Revision Sheet 1 191
I.P.U.C. No. 26 Sheet 191
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 191
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER ADJUSTMENT - IDAHO
APPLICABLE:
To Customers in the State of Idaho where the Company has natural gas
service available. This Energy Efficiency Rider or Rate Adjustment shall be
applicable to all retail customers taking service under Schedules 101, 111, 112,
121, 122, 131, 132, and 146. This Rate Adjustment is designed to recover costs
incurred by the Company associated with providing energy efficiency services and
programs to customers.
MONTHLY RATE:
The energy charges of the individual rate schedules are to be increased by
the following amounts:
Schedule 101 -.00 per Therm
Schedule lll&112 -.0 per Therm
Schedule 121 & 122 - .00 per Therm
Schedule 131 & 132 - .00 per Therm
Schedule 146 - .0perTherm
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Service under this schedule is subject to the Rules and Regulations
contained in this tariff.
The above Rate is subject to increases as set forth in Tax Adjustment
Schedule 158.
Issued Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By 7)
, Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration I C~~ (
. Nineteenth Revision S
Canc g
I P U C No 25 Eighteenth Revision Sheet B
B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
INDEX PAGE - IDAHO
Schedule Sheet
No Title of Sheet
TitlePage .............................................................................................................. A
IndexPage ............................................................................................................ B
1 Residential Service-Idaho 1
11 General Service ..................................................................................................11
12 Residential and Farm General Service-Idaho 12
21 Large General Service-Idaho ............................................................................... 21
22 Residential and Farm Large General Service-Idaho 22
25 Extra Large General Service-Idaho .....................................................................25
27 Extra Large High Voltage Service-Idaho 27
31 Pumping Service-Idaho .......................................................................................31
32 Residential and Farm Pumping Service-Idaho .....................................................32
33 Irrigation Discount Rate-Idaho ............................................................................. 33
41 Company Owned Street Light Service-Idaho .......................................................41
42 Company Owned Street Light Service-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor-Idaho 42
43 Customer Owned Street Light Energy & Maintenance Service-Idaho ................... 43
44 Customer Owned Street Light Energy & Maintenance Service-High-Pressure
SodiumVapor ..................................................................................................... 44
45 Customer Owned Street Light Energy Service-Idaho ........................................... 45
46 Customer Owned Street Light Energy Service-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor ......46
47 Area Lighting-Idaho-Mercury Vapor .....................................................................47
48 Residential and Farm Area Lighting-Idaho ...........................................................48
49 Area Lighting-Idaho-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor ............................................... 49
Miscellaneous Schedules
51 Line Extension, Conversion, and Relocation Schedule ........................................51
53 Temporary Service .............................................................................................. 53
54 Line Extension and Conversion Schedule for Local Improvement Districts 54
58 Tax Adjustment Schedule .................................................................................... 58
59 Residential and Farm Energy Rate Adjustment-Idaho ..........................................59
62 Small Power Production and Cogeneration .......................................................... 62
63 Solar Domestic Water Heating Demonstration Program .....................................63
66 Temporary Power Cost Adjustment-Idaho ...........................................................66
67 Energy Efficiency Service for New Residential
Buildings .............................................................................................................67
Rulesand Regulations ........................................................................................70
81 Residential Service - Wallace, Mullan and Burke ...............................................81
82 General Service - Wallace, MulIan and Burke ....................................................82
90 Electric Enerqy Efficiency Programs .................................................................... 90
91 Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment - Idaho .........................................................91
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The WaLLington Water Fr Company
Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration By VJ
S Fifth Revision Sheet 90
Cancelling
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Fourth Revision Sheet 90
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90
ELECTRICENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
IDAHO
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Section Tariff Sheet
Purpose 90
Availability 90A
Definitions 90A
Programs
Manufactured Housing Acquisition Program (MAP) 90C
Limited Income Residential Energy Efficiency 90D
HVAC System Efficiency 90E
Energy 2000 90F
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific 90G
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific Prescriptive Variable 901
Frequency Drives for Heating, Ventilating and Air
,Conditioning
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific Prescriptive Variable 901
Frequency Drives for Lumber Dry Kilns Fan Motors
Commercial Prescriptive Lighting Rebate Program 90K
Commercial Prescriptive Fuel Switching Rebate 90M
Trade Ally 90N
Resource Management Partnership Program (RMPP) 900
Regional Energy Efficiency Programs 90P
General Rules and Provisions 90Q
PURPOSE
To promote efficient use of energy by providing partial funding for the
installation of energy efficiency measures and by providing other services to
Customers for the purpose of identification and implementation of cost-effective
energy efficiency measures. The acquisition of resources is cost-effective as
defined by a Total Resource Cost test (TRC) and is consistent with the
Company's most recently filed Integrated Resource Plan.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Was ington Water Power Company
By ,1.s, Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
jW
Fifth Revision Sheet 9 90A
Cancelling
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Fourth Revision Sheet 90A
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
AVAILABILITY
The programs described herein are available to specified residential,
commercial, and industrial Customers. The programs are available to Owners of
these facilities, and also may be provided to tenants who have obtained
appropriate Owner consent.
Funding provided under this schedule is limited to end uses where electricity
is the energy source and to measures which increase the efficient use of
electricity. Customer participation under this schedule shall be based on
eligibility requirements contained herein.
DEFINITIONS
The following terms, when used in this schedule, shall have the meanings
given below:
Agency. A non-profit group authorized by state authorities to receive
funds for installation of weatherization materials in dwellings occupied by
Limited Income Customers.
Contractor. A party other than the Company or the Customer who is
retained to evaluate the energy efficiency savings opportunities at the
Customer's facility or to install measures under a specific program.
Customer. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association,
governmental agency, political subdivision, municipality, or other entity
who has applied for, been accepted, and is currently receiving firm retail
electric service from the Company. The Customer may or may not be the
Owner of the dwelling or facility receiving electric service, but nonetheless
has a legal right to occupy the dwelling or facility either through ownership,
or a lease or rental agreement.
Direct Administrative Costs. The Company's direct costs of
administering programs, including, but not limited to, costs associated with
audits, analysis, Customer proposals, oversight & inspections,
management and supervision, training, and promotion specific to the
measure or Program.
Full Avoided Cost. The cost the Company would incur to acquire power
from a source other than energy efficiency measures, adjusted for credits
for line loss savings and other benefits.
Identifiable Market Barriers. Any condition or constraint that prevents a
Customer from implementing a cost-effective energy efficiency option
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff AdministrationC~j
0 Fourth Revision Sheet 9 90B
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Third Revision Sheet 906
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
including short pay back requirement, lack of capital, perceived risk of
energy savings, or other barriers that might be removed or lessened by
utility intervention.
Incremental Measure Cost. The incremental cost of a energy efficiency
measure in excess of the cost of a measure and/or design required to
satisfy existing codes or conforming with existing construction or
equipment replacement standard practices.
Limited Income. Single-family residential households in which the
combined annual income of the Occupants is not greater than 125% of the
federally-established poverty level. Limited Income also means
households in duplexes and triplexes where at least 50% of the
households meet this limited income guideline, and fourplexes and other
multi-family dwellings where at least 50% of the households meet this
limited income guideline.
Measure Cost. The known and measurable costs to all parties of
purchasing and installing the measure at the facility site, including the
costs of audits and engineering studies performed to assess the
opportunities for energy efficiency measures.
Measure Life. The maximum term (in years) that the Company will
assume savings can be expected to occur from the measure. The value of
Measure Life may be lower than the average life expectancy of the
equipment/materials related to the measure, due to uncertainty of
continuing savings over that period.
Measurement and Evaluation Costs. Costs incurred for each program to
study, survey, and otherwise analytically assess the impacts of the
program by determining energy savings achieved from the program and
estimating the cost-effectiveness of those savings.
Net Avoided Cost. The Full Avoided cost reduced by the Direct
Administrative Costs and the Measurement and Evaluation Costs
associated with the program.
Owner. The person who has legal title to the dwelling or facility, is the
mortgagor under a duly recorded mortgage of real property, is the trustor
under a duly recorded deed of trust, is a purchaser under a duly recorded
contract for the purchase of real property, or has legal title to a mobile
home.
Issued October 24, 1996
Issued by The Was ton Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration A~ J>
0 Second Revision Sheet 9 90C
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90C
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
Prescriptive. A pre-established funding or energy savings amount for a
measure that is not individually or differently computed for each participant
in a program.
Site. A geographically contiguous facility or group of facilities owned or
operated by the Customer, served by the Company with one or more
electric meters.
Site Specific. Funding for each participant in a program that is
determined using an estimate of savings determined for each site.
Three year period. January 1. 1997 through December 31, 1999.
Trade Ally. A third-party vendor, energy service company, distributor,
engineer, architect, consultant, or other business that recommends,
designs, supplies, or installs energy-saving equipment or provides energy
related services.
PROGRAM: MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACQUISITION PROGRAM (MAP)
1.Availability. To manufacturers of new HUD-Code manufactured (mobile)
housing which also meets the Bonneville Power Administrations regional
MAP specifications and receives electric service from the Company under
tariff Schedule 01 for space heating. Determinations of qualification for
MAP are made by state energy offices.
2.Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under
this proaram are as follows:
Measure Measure Life
All components and construction of the 30 years
manufactured housing meeting MAP regional
3.Analysis. Savings for MAP homes are determined Prescriptively based
upon calculations performed during development of this regional program.
4.Funding. The Company will pay $1,500 to the manufacturer of each
qualifying map home (constructed on or after October 25, 1994) and
$2,500 for MAP homes constructed or on after April 1, 1992 but prior to
October 25, 1994 in addition to a $150 per home administrative payment to
the Bonneville Power Administration. In order to receive payment, homes
must be manufactured by July 26, 1995 and sited on or before January 26,
1997. Total utility cost for the three-year oeriod is estimated at
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Second Revision Sheet go 90D
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90D
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: LIMITED INCOME RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
1.Availability. To any Owner of a residential dwelling in which a Limited
Income Customer receives electric service from the Company under tariff
Schedule 01. The dwelling must-utilize electric space heating equipment
as the primary source of space conditioning. The Limited Income
Customer must also use at least 4,000 kWh's per year for space
conditioning in order to qualify for this program. The Agency will qualify
Customers for assistance under this program using the federal limited
income guidelines.
2.Measures. Company-approved measures eligible for installation under
this program are as follows:
Whenever possible, the replaced electric equipment, for which the
Customer is receiving funding, shall be removed and destroyed. If the
equipment cannot be removed, then the heating function will be disabled.
3.Analysis. A Site Specific or Prescriptive analysis will be performed to
estimate energy savings levels of measures prior to installation. For
qualifying Limited Income Customers, the Agency will perform the analysis.
4.Funding. Upon completion of the installation of measures, the Company
will reimburse the Aaencv as follows:
Measure Funding Level
Weatherization $0.40 cents/kWh
Space Heat Conversion $0.23 cents/kWh
Water Heat Conversion $650.00
Total utility cost estimated for the 3-year period is $1,767,000. Designated
program funding will expire on December 3, 1999. Projects must be
completed and all invoices and verification necessary to process Customer
arants should be received by the ComDanv on or before December 3.
1999.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Was ington Water Power Company
By • , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
Measure Measure Life
Infiltration control 10 years
Set-Bpck 1hemostat 1 0 yeam
Water Heater Wrap 10 years
Electric space heat to natural gas 25 years
Electric water heat to natural gas 25 years
Ceiling insulation 30 years
Wall insulation 1 30 years
Floor insulation 1 30 years
Third Revision Sheet 90E
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90E
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: HVAC SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
1.Availability. Available to any residential Customer with a ducted HVAC
system who receives electric service under tariff Schedule 01.
2.Description. This program is designed to improve residential HVAC
system efficiency by reducing energy losses associated with leaky duct
systems and poor furnace filter maintenance.
The duct sealing program will include two components: one for new
homes and one for retrofits. The new home component will allow builders
of new homes with ducts in unconditioned areas to voluntarily submit the
home to a duct blaster test. Homes that meet a minimum performance
criteria will earn the right to advertise their home as a "Energy Efficiency
Duct Home". There will be no direct incentives provided under this
component of the program.
The retrofit component will be open to any existing home with ducts
in unconditioned areas. The program will provide the homeowner with a
$50 direct incentive for pressure panning their home. For homes not
meeting pressure pan specifications, an additional $200 incentive up to a
M.
The furnace filter component of the HVAC System Efficiency
Program will focus on increasing the energy efficiency of HVAC systems,
through the proper maintenance of furnace filters. The program will include
an educational component to disseminate information concerning the
energy, health and comfort benefits of proper furnace filter replacements
and the different kinds of furnace filters. This component will also include
the distribution of filter change reminder aids which may include calendar
markers and refriaerator maanets that include the scheduled date for the
- next change.
3.Funding. Total utility cost for the 3-year period is
program funding will expire on December 3, 1999.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By It.> , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
9 Thud Revision Sheet 4 90F
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90F
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: ENERGY 2000
Home Automation
1.Availability. Due to the experimental basis of this program, the Company
will work in conjunction with regional home shows and area developers to
select new construction and existing home sites that receive service under
tariff Schedule 01. The company will select 7 test sites over Washington
and Idaho service territories, in both new and existing homes, in price
ranges from under $100,000 to $250,000.
The automation system may include some or all of the following:
monitoring and control of furnaces, cooling systems, indoor and outdoor
lighting, hot water heaters, links to existing security systems,phone dial-in
monitoring and control capabilities, and energy metering to indicate the
energy costs on visual displays on the premises. The processing units of
the automation systems should be re-programmable for system upgrades.
The displays would be either on TVs or LCD units.,
2.Description. This øroaram will attempt to demonstrate the potential of
explore the use of Home Automation technologies that will enhance energy
efficiency and comfort in the home.
3.Funding. The budget for each home automation project will be based on a
10-year simple payback at 30% energy savings. For example, if a home
consumes an estimated average energy cost of $200 a month, the home
automation budget will be $200 x 30% x 12 months x 10 Years = $7200.
New Technologies
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 011, 021, 025 and 026 or special contract
which include energy efficiency system rates or any Owner or Developer
developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will receive service
under tariff Schedule 011, 021, 025 and 026 or special contract which
include energy efficiency system rates. Customers may apply for
participation through the same application process as the Site Specific
Program.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 - ... Second Revision Sheet 90G
LP.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90(3
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
2.Description. This program will provide an alternative funding mechanism
to promote and encourage the implementation of new products and
technologies to the WWP service area. The goal is to shorten adaptation
time of these products into the Customer's site. The technologies should
be proven, provide energy savings, be environmentally friendly and create
regional economic stimulation. Technologies currently available in the
marketplace include LED traffic lights, T-5 lighting systems, and Microwave
industrial dryers.
Due to the unique weather, economy and environmental conditions
in the Inland Northwest, many technologies that are developed are not
proven to operate well in this part of the country as in others. Another
program component for new technologies to provide research funds to
local institutions, schools, consulting firms, manufacturers, or individuals to
do energy related research project to benefit WWP customers and regional
programs. Samples of topics already under consideration include
renewable resources applications, electric vehicles and optimized energy
management systems with an outside air control algorithm for Inland
Northwest weather condition.
3.Funding. Customers will receive $0.10 per kWh or 50% of the total cost,
whichever is lower with a cap of $75,000 per site for the installation of new
products or technologies. Designated program funding will expire on
December 3, 1999. Projects must be completed, all invoices requested by
the Comanv submitted and all verifications necessary to ørocess the
2000. Total utility cost estimated for Home Automation and New
Technologies combined for the 31 Deriod is $993
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, 31, or special contract for electric
service which includes energy efficiency system rates, or any Owner or,
Developer , developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will
receive service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, 31, or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency rates.
Issued October 24, 1998 Effective January 1, 1997
by The Wngton Water Power Company
By 'b Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
C i hwa--
0 Third Revision Sheet 90H
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90H
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
2.Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under
this program are as follows:
Measure Measure Life
HVAC and Refrigeration
HVAC and Refrigeration - Unitary 10 years
HVAC and Refrigeration - Central 15 years
Heat Recovery 15 years
Chillers 20 years
Controls
Energy Management Systems 10 years
Direct Digital Control Systems 10 years
Lighting Control Systems 10 years
SCADA Systems 10 years
Process and Other Miscellaneous Control 10 years
Systems
Motors and Drives
Variable Frequency Drives 15 years
Fan, Compressor and Pump Systems 15 years
Process Fuel Switching 15 years
OthAr Motor and Drive Systems 15 years
Other Process
Other ProcessFffitincy,lmprovements 15 years
Additional Measures may qualify for funding under this program. Such
determination shall be at the discretion of the Company.All measures
approved for funding shall exceed local energy efficiency codes or, where
no such code exits. shall meet or exceed "standard industry Dractices" as
determined by the Company.
3.Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must do one
of the following prior to December3. 1999: 1) begin development of a
Company approved engineering analysis in accordance with a Company
approved scope of work; or 2) receive formal acceptance from the
Company of an engineering analysis of savings potential performed at the
Applicant's direction and expense; or 3) match savings measures with
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By ,Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration 1>
Third Revision Sheet 901
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Sheet 901
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
Company approved prescriptive measures and return applications/forms to
the Company. In addition, projects must be completed and all invoices
requested by the Company from the Customer and all verifications
necessary to process Customer grants should be received by the Company
on or before December 4. 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a Site
Specific basis equal to the lesser of 1) 50% of the Incremental Measure
cost or 2) an amount equal to Company approved estimated first-year kWh
savings times $0.05 per kWh.
Fundingfrom the Company will also include up to 100% of the cost
of any Site Specific studies or services performed atthe Company's
direction by the Company or a qualified Engineer or Contractor on the
Applicant's behalf for projects which are ultimately completed. Such
studies or services costs shall not exceed $0.12 times the square footage
of the facility under study, as determined by the Company.
For projects that are not ultimately completed, the Company funding
remaininci costs of such studies or services.
000 dollars.
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC PRESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES FOR HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR
CONDITIONING
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for electric
service which includes energy efficiency system rates, or any Owner or
Developer developing a new commercial or industrial facility that will
receive service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency system rates.
2.Measures. Measures qualifying are new Variable Frequency Drives
FDs)for new electric motors or existing electric motors where no such
existed, used to drive and air
cooling pumps.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By r'ç' , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
Fourth Revision Sheet 90.1
P.U.C. NO. 25 Third Revision Sheet 90J
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
3.Analysis. Savinqs for VFDs are determined Prescriptively by size and end
use of the electric motor driven by the VFD using standard engineering
practices and methods.
4.Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must match
savings with Company approved prescriptive measures and return
applications/forms to the Company by no later than December 3, 1999. In
addition, projects must be completed and all invoices requested by the
Company from the Customer and all verifications necessary to process
Customer grants should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a
Prescriptive basis as follows not to exceed 50% of the actual installed cost
of the Variable Frequency Drive:
Maximum $ Per Horsepower of
HVAC Equipment Driven by VFD
HVAC Fan Motors $50.00
fl!) Motors
F I ng iump Only or
kel
program.
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC - PRESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES FOR LUMBER DRY KILNS FAN MOTORS
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 21, 25, 26, or special contract for electric
service which includes energy efficiency system rates, or any Owner or
Developer developinq a new commercial or industrial facility that will
receive service under tariff Schedule 21. 25. 26. or sDecial contract for
rates.
2. Measures. Measures qualifying are new Drives
(VFDs) for new electric motors or existing ek ) such
Drive oreviouslv existed. used to drive Lumber Kiln Fans.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Wa ton Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
Second Revision Sheet 9 90K
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90K
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
3. Funding. To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must match
savings with Company approved prescriptive measures and return.
applications/forms to the Company no later than December 3, 1999. In
addition, projects must be completed and all invoices requested by the
Customer grants should be received by the Company on or before
December 4, 2000.
The Company will provide Funding to the Customer on a
Prescriptive basis not to exceed 50% of the actual installed cost of the
Variable Frequency Drive or $120.00 per kilowatt (kW) saved as
determined by the Company.
Funding amounts are subject to change as determined by the
Company's energy savings evaluations and market changes affecting the
costs of Variable Frequency Drives for Lumber Dry Kiln applications.
Fundina for this oroaram is orovided as a oortion of the Commerciall
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL PRESCRIPTIVE LIGHTING REBATE PROGRAM
1.Availability. To any commercial Customer receiving electric service under
tariff Schedule 11.
2.Description. This program will provide direct incentives to Customers who
perform lighting retrofit projects. Funding will only be available for lighting
retrofit projects on existing facilities and where installation is not required
by local energy efficiency codes or, where no such code exists, lighting
measures approved for funding must meet or exceed "standard industry
practices" as determined by the Company.
3.Funding. Company funding under this program is limited to $3,000 per
site, per year. Minimum funding shall be $200.00 per project to qualify.
The Company will not fund the cost of Site Specific studies or analyses
under this program. To qualify for funding under this tariff, all applications
to this program must be fully completed and returned to the Company by
the due date stated on the application. Total utility cost over the period
1997 through 1999 is $404,000 and will be provided under this tariff in
WWP's combined Washington and Idaho service areas. The Company will
rebate to Customers at the following levels:.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The W ngton Waterper çQg pany
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Second Revision Sheet 4 90L
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90L
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By (j Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration 7)
. .
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Orialnal Sheet 90M
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL PRESCRIPTIVE FUEL SWITCHING REBATE
1.Availability. To any commercial Customer receiving electric service under
tariff Schedule 11.
2.Description. This program will facilitate acquisition of low interest loans to
Customers for capital expenditure associated with switching from electric to
natural gas as the primary fuel for space heating. The program will work in
artnershiø with local financial institutions to provide market rate loans to
credit worthy Customers. The Company will purchase the loan interest
liability from the lending financial institution. The Company-approved
measures eligible for installation under this program must have end use
efficiencies of at least 80% and must meet current state or federal minimum
efficiency requirements.
3.Funding. The Company will provide funding to purchase loan interest
liability from the lending financial institution. This funding will be provided
as follows:
Electric Heating System Maximum
Input Capacity (BTU/hr) Funding
45,000 to 59,999
60,000 to 74,999
$279.00
$370.00
75,000 to 99,999 $460.00
100,000 to 124,999 $620.00
125,000 to 149,999 $775.00
150,000 to 199,999 $930.00
200,000 and greater $1,240.00
To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must return
aoolications/forms to the Comoanv by no later than December 3. 1999.
Proiects must be completed and all invoices requested by the Company
submitted and all verifications performed should be received by the
Company on or before December 4, 2000. Funding will only be available
for the above measures on existing facilities and where installation is not
required by local energy efficiency codes or, where no such code exists,
measures approved for funding must meet or exceed "standard industry
practices" as determined by the Comoanv. Total utility cost over the three-
year oeriod is $401.000.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Was ington Water Power Company
By
'j
Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
S .
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Original Sheet 90N
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
PROGRAM: TRADE ALLY
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule II, 21, 25,26, 31 or special contract for
electric service which includes energy efficiency system rates or any
Owner or Developer developing a new commercial or industrial facility that
will receive service under tariff Schedule 11, 21, 25,26, 31 or special
contract which include energy efficiency system rates.
2 Description. The Company will work with Customers and Trade Allies to
identify energyefficiency projects that in the Company's opinion are not
occurring due to identifiable market barriers. To qualify for assistance
under this tariff, the Applicant must have done the following: a) identified
or be actively working with a contractor to identify an energy efficiency
project b) selected a contractor(s) that will perform services or provide
equipment for the energy efficiency project. The Company, at its discretion
will provide assistance to overcome market barriers that may include any of
the following:
Technical-Link will provide the Customer with a third-party review of their
* Verification of estimated energy savings
* Pre- and Post-metering to verify energy savings
* Lending of diagnostic tools to Customers to monitor how energy is
used and consumed in their place of business
cial-Link will offer a lendina proaram for businesses in order to
benefits may include:
* Low cost financing
* Engineering and financial reviews
* Reduced loan costs and collateral requirements
Educational-Link will offer seminars and other materials about the
changing industry, new technologies and pertinent issues. Other services
may include but are not limited to:
* "How To" information
*On...line energy savings models for energy efficient
selection
* Do-it-yourself energy audits
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
.

900
I.P.U.C. NO.
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
3. Funding. Various funding alternatives are available. Customers ma y
benefit from one or more of the following options:
* Design review services up to $1,500.
* Loan fees of up to $500.
The maximum amount of funding a Customer may acquire per site,
year is $2.000. Total utility cost for the 3-year oeriod is $879.000.
PROGRAM: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (RMPP)
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under tariff Schedule 11. 21. 25. 26 or soecial contract for electric
service or any Owner or Developer developing a new commercial or
industrial facility that will receive service under tariff Schedule 11, 21, 25,
b, or which
system rates with a combination of buildings with $1 million dollars worth of
resource expenses and at least 2 million square feet of building space.
Non-profit agencies, school districts, office buildings, universities, hotels
and restaurant chains may be the primary focus; with consideration to be
given to all who apply. A special effort will be made to generate the
interest of multiple non-profit agencies in participating in the program.
2.Description. The RMPP will promote resource savings and demonstrate
the cost effectiveness of improved operations and maintenance within
existing facilities. Participating Customers must agree to continue
operations and monitoring efforts upon the expiration of the RMPP position
through the adoption of resource policy guidelines incorporating the
guidelines into "standard practice" building operations. The Company will
provide Customers with the option of selecting a shared savings approach
with a auarantee that oroaram savinas cover the costs associated with the
lement the
3.Funding. Totalutility cost estimated for the 3-year program is $447,000.
The funding amount includes an estimated amount to cover a portion of the
guaranteed salary and expenses not covered by the reduction in resource
costs.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1
Issued by The Was ington Water Power Company
By b , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. a gop
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Orlainal Sheet 90P
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
PROGRAM: NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PARTNERSHIP
1.Availability. To any residential, commercial or industrial Customer
receiving electric service.
2.Description. This regional program focuses on supplying products,
services or technologies that will assist residential and commercial
customers in improving the use of electric resources. WWP along with
other participating utilities and organizations will make the customers
aware of product information and availability.
Existing Regional Programs **
Compact Fluorescent Manufacturers Rebate - residential
High Efficiency MAP Inspection Support - residential
Technical Assistance Support (TAS) - residential/commercial
Energy Ideas Clearinghouse - residential/commercial
Seattle Lighting Design Lab - residential/commercial & industrial
Utility Code Group Support - commercial
The Company currently contributes to the sponsorship of these programs.
Potential Regional Programs
Compact Fluorescent Fixture Rebate - residential
Cleaner Northwest High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program - residential
Motor Transformation - commercial/industrial
Home Energy Rating System - residential
Building Operator Certification - commercial
Energy Products Catalog - residential/commercial & industrial
3.Funding. Total utility cost estimated for electric costs over the 3-year
period is $3,108,000. Designated program funding will expire on
December 3, 1999.
Issued October 24, 1996
Issued by The Washington Water PowerCompany
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
.

900
I.P.U.C. NO
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90- continued
GENERAL RULES AND PROVISIONS
Service under this schedule is subject to the General Rules and Provisions
contained in this tariff and is limited to facilities receiving electric service from the
Company.
All installations and equipment must comply with all local code and permit
requirements applicable and be properly inspected, if required, by appropriate
agencies.
The Company may establish specifications regarding any energy efficiency
measures and modifications to be effected under this schedule and may conduct
inspections to insure that such specifications are met.
In addition to other funding limits that may exist in specific programs under this
tariff, commercial and industrial Customers participating in any
commercial/industrial programs in this tariff shall be limited to receiving $100,000
per calendar year per Site for funding per qualifying projects by the Company.
Excess funding amounts not paid can be carried over into the following calendar
year for payment by the Company, but will be subject to this funding limitation. In
no event will the Company pay more than $200,000 per individual project.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The ington Water Power Company
By , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration jv~
. First Revision Sh
Canc g
I.P.U.C. No. 25 Original Sheet 91
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 91
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER ADJUSTMENT - IDAHO
APPLICABLE:
To Customers in the State of Idaho where the Company has electric service
available except for Sandpoint, Priest River, Hope, East Hope, Old Town and
immediately surrounding areas. This Energy Efficiency Rider or Rate Adjustment
shall be applicable to all retail customers for charges for electric energy sold and
to the flat rate charges for Company-owned or Customer-owned Street Lighting
and Area Lighting Service. This Rate Adjustment is designed to recover costs
incurred by the Company associated with providing energy efficiency services and
programs to customers.
MONTHLY RATE:
The energy charges of the individual rate schedules are to be increased by
the following amounts:
Schedule 1 - _.0680per kWh Schedule 25 - .0420 per kWh
Schedule 11 & 12 - _.1030 per kWh Schedule 26 - .0420 per kWh
Schedule 21 & 22 -.0720 per kWh Schedule 31 & 32 - .0630 per kWh
Flat rate charges for Company-owned or Customer-owned Street Lighting
and Area Lighting Service are to be increased by_1.503 0%.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Service under this schedule is subject to the Rules and Regulations
contained in this tariff.
The above Rate is subject to increases as set forth in Tax Adjustment
Schedule 58.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
91
Issued by The W ngton Water Power Company
By
0

Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. Twelfth Revision S ____ B
Canc g
I.P.U.C. No. 26 Eleventh Revision Sheet B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
INDEX PAGE - IDAHO
Schedule Sheet
No. Title of Sheet No.
TitlePage ........................................................................................ A
Index. .............................................................................................. B
Definition of Rate Area .................................................................... C
101 General Service - Firm - Idaho 101
111 Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ............................................. 111
112 Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ............................................. 112
121 High Annual Load Factor Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ....121
122 High Annual Load Factor Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ....122
131 Interruptible Service - Idaho (Off Peak) .......................................... 131
132 Interruptible Service - Idaho (Off Peak) .......................................... 132
140 Incremental Pricing Surcharge Rate - Idaho . . . . . . ....................... 140
142 Incentive Gas Credit - Idaho ........................................................... 142
146 Transportation Service for Customer-Owned Gas .......................... 146
149 Special Purchase Gas Cost Adjustment - Idaho ............................. . 149
150 Purchase Gas Cost Adjustment - Idaho.......................................... 150
151 Gas Extension and Relocation Schedule ........................................ 151
153 Temporary Service ......................................................................... 153
154 Rural Gas Service Connections ...................................................... . 154
155 Gas Rate Adjustment ...................................................................... 155
158 Tax Adjustment Schedule ............................................................... 158
Rulesand Regulations.................................................................... 170
Contingency Plan for Firm Service Gas Curtailment . ..................... 182
191 Energy Efficiency Rider Adjustment - Idaho ................................... 191
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager Rates & Tariff Administration(.--J (A.- Z>
First Revision Sheet 191
Canceilin
I.P.U.C. No. 26 Original Sheet 191
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 191
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER ADJUSTMENT - IDAHO
APPLICABLE:
To Customers in the State of Idaho where the Company has natural gas
service available. This Energy Efficiency Rider or Rate Adjustment shall be
applicable to all retail customers taking service under Schedules 101, 111, 112,
121, 122, 131, 132, and 146. This Rate Adjustment is designed to recover costs
incurred by the Company associated with providing energy efficiency services and
programs to customers.
MONTHLY RATE:
The energy charges of the individual rate schedules are to be increased by
the following amounts:
Schedule 101 -.00 per Them,
Schedule lll&112 •.0 per Therm
Schedule 121 & 122 - .00 per Therm
Schedule 131 & 132 - 0-0 per Therm
Schedule 146 - per Therm
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Service under this schedule is subject to the Rules and Regulations
contained in this tariff.
The above Rate is subject to increases as set forth in Tax Adjustment
Schedule 158.
Issued October 24, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997
Issued by The ton Water Power Company
Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration By jw
. Eighteenth Revision Sh B
Canc . g
I.P.U.C. No. 25 Seventeenth Revision Sheet B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
INDEX PAGE IDAHO
Schedule Sheet
No. Title of Sheet No.
TitlePage ................................................................................................................. A
IndexPage ............................................................................................................... B
1 Residential Service-Idaho ........................................................................................ 1
11 General Service ..................................................................................................... 11
12 Residential and Farm General Service-Idaho ........................................................ 12
21 Large General Service-Idaho ................................................................................. 21
22 Residential and Farm Large General Service-Idaho .............................................. .22
25 Extra Large General Service-Idaho ....................................................................... 25
27 Extra Large High Voltage Service-Idaho ................................................................ 27
31 Pumping Service-Idaho .......................................................................................... 31
'o I.l...I..-. .jc. uiuuiui ciHu riuti ruuipniy .. vu -Iuc1 IIu ......................................................
33 Irrigation Discount Rate-Idaho ................................................................................ 33
41 Company Owned Street Light Service-Idaho ......................................................... 41
42 Company Owned Street Light Service-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor-Idaho ......... .42
43 Customer Owned Street Light Energy & Maintenance Service-Idaho ................... 43
44 Customer Owned Street Light Energy & Maintenance Service-High-Pressure
SodiumVapor ........................................................................................................ 44
45 Customer Owned Street Light Energy Service-Idaho ............................................ 45
46 Customer Owned Street Light Energy Service-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor ...... 46
47 Area Lighting-Idaho-Mercury Vapor ....................................................................... 47
48 Residential and Farm Area Lighting-Idaho ............................................................ 48
49 Area Lighting-Idaho-High-Pressure Sodium Vapor ................................................ 49
Miscellaneous Schedules
51 Line Extension, Conversion, and Relocation Schedule ......................................... 51
53 Temporary Service ................................................................................................. 53
54 Line Extension and Conversion Schedule for Local Improvement Districts ........... 54
58 Tax Adjustment Schedule ...................................................................................... 58
59 Residential and Farm Energy Rate Adjustment-Idaho ........................................... 59
62 Small Power Production and Cogeneration ........................................................... 62
63 Solar Domestic Water Heating Demonstration Program ....................................... 63
66 Temporary Power Cost Adjustment- Idaho ............................................................. 66
67 Energy Efficiency Service for New Residential
Buildings ................................................................................................................ 67
Rulesand Regulations ........................................................................................... 70
81 Residential Service - Wallace, Mullan and Burke ................................................ 81
82 General Service - Wallace, MuIlan and Burke ..................................................... 82
90 Demand Sido Mancigomont-Programs ................................................................... 90
91 Experimental DSM Rider Adjustment - Idaho ........................................................ 91
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective March 10, 1995*
*Per IPUC Order No. 25917
Issued by TheW ington Water ower Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. Fourth Revision She
Canc
I.P.U.C. No. 25 Third Revision Sheet 90
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90
ELECTRIC DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
IDAHO
I TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Section
Purpose
Availability
Definitions
Programs
Wcathcrization
- Compact Fluoroseont Light Bulbs
Manufactured Housing Acquisition Program (MAP)
Natural Gas Alternative to MAP
Limited Income Energy Efficiency
Commercial/Industrial Site Specific
Pilot Commproial/lnduotrial Building Commiosioning
Pilot Commcroial/lnduptripl Trade Ally
Pilot Sohools Rosouroc Conoorvation Manager
General Rules and Provisions
Tariff Sheet
90
90
90A
900
90D
90D
90E
90F
90G
901
901
90K
90L
PURPOSE
To promote efficient use of energy by providing partial or full funding for the
installation of energy conservation measures and by providing other services to
customers for the purpose of identification and implementation of cost-effective
conservation The acquisition of resources is cost-effective as defined by a Total
Resource Cost test (TRC) and is consistent with the Company's most recently
filed Integrated Resource Plan.
AVAILABILITY
The programs described herein are available to specified residential,
commercial, and industrial customers. The programs are available to Owners of
these facilities, and also may be provided to tenants who have obtained
appropriate Owner consent.
Issued October 26 1994 Effective January 1 1995
S .
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By •__-4--- Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. Fourth Revision She 90A

Can g
LP.U.C. NO. 25 Third Revision Sheet 90A
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
Funding provided under this schedule is limited to end uses where electricity is
the energy source and to measures which increase the efficient use of electricity.
Customer participation under this schedule shall be based on eligibility
requirements contained herein.
DEFINITIONS
The following terms, when used in this schedule, shall have the meanings
given below:
Agency. A non-profit group authorized by state authorities to receive
funds for installation of weathenzation materials in dwellings occupied by
Limited Income Customers.
Contractor. A party other than the Company or the Customer who is
retained to evaluate the demand side management savings opportunities
at the Customer's facility or to install measures under a specific program
Customer. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association,
governmental agency, political subdivision, municipality, or other entity who
has applied for, been accepted, and is currently receiving firm retail electric
service from the Company. The Customer may or may not be the Owner
of the dwelling or facility receiving electric service, but nonetheless has a
legal right to occupy the dwelling or facility either through ownership, or a
lease or rental agreement.
Direct Administrative Costs The Company's direct costs of
administering programs, including, but not limited to, costs associated with
audits, analysis, customer proposals, oversight & inspections, management
and supervision, training, and promotion specific to the measure or
Program.
Full Avoided Cost. The cost the Company would incur to acquire power
from a source other than demand side management rosouroco, adjusted
for credits for line loss savings and other benefits
Identifiable Market Barriers. Any condition or constraint that prevents a
customer from implementing a cost-effective energy efficiency option
including short pay back requirement, lack of capital, perceived risk of
energy savings, or other barriers that might be removed or lessened by
utility intervention.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by T ton Water
, Manager Rates & Tariff Administration
. Third Revision She
cang
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
Incremental Measure Cost. The incremental cost of a demand side
management measure in excess of the cost of a measure and/or design
required to satisfy existing codes or conforming with existing construction
or equipment replacement standard practices.
Limited Income. Single-family residential households in which the
combined annual income of the Occupants IS not greater than 125% of the
federally-established poverty level Limited Income also means
households in duplexes and triplexes where at least 50% of the households
meet this low income guideline, and fourplexes and other multi-family
dwellings where at least 50% of the households meet this low income
guideline. -Limited Inoomo also moans non MAP manufactured housing.
Measure Cost. The known and measurable costs to all parties of
purchasing and installing the measure at the facility site, including the costs
of audits and engineering studies performed to assess the opportunities for
demand side measures.
Measure Life The maximum term (in years) that the Company will
assume savings can be expected to occur from the measure The value of
Measure Life may be lower than the average life expectancy of the
equipment/materials related to the measure, due to uncertainty of
continuing savings over that period
Measurement and Evaluation Costs. Costs incurred for each program to
study, survey, and otherwise analytically assess the impacts of the
program by determining energy savings achieved from the program and
estimating the cost-effectiveness of those savings.
Net Avoided Cost. The Full Avoided cost reduced by the Direct
Administrative Costs and the Measurement and Evaluation Costs
associated with the program
Owner. The person who has legal title to the dwelling or facility, is the
mortgagor under a duly recorded mortgage of real property, is the trustor
under a duly recorded deed of trust, is a purchaser under a duly recorded
contract for the purchase of real property, or has legal title to a mobile
home.
Prescriptive. A pre-established funding or energy savings amount for a
measure that is not individually or differently computed for each participant
in a program.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The-W ington Water Power Company
By 1-b Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. First Revision Sheela 90C
CancOMIg
l.P.U.C. NO. 25 Original Sheet 90C
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
Site. A geographically contiguous facility or group of facilities owned or
operated by the Customer, served by the Company with one or more
electric meters
Site Specific Funding for each participant in a program that is determined
using an estimate of savings determined for each site
Trade Ally. A third-party vendor, energy service company, distributor,
engineer, architect, consultant, or other business that recommends,
designs, supplies, or installs energy-saving equipment or provides energy
conservation services
PROGRAM WEATI IERIZATION
1.Availability. To any Owner of a residential dwelling in which the Customer
receives electric service from the Company under tariff . Schedule 1. The
dwelling must having permanently installed olootric hoot, and the Customer
must use at least 4,000 kWh per year for space heating. Dwellings must be
either a singic family home, duplex, triplex, or fourplex Funding for no
more than $125,000 por year will be provided under this tariff in WWP's
oombincd Washington and Idaho service aroao--
2.Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under this
program arc as follows:
I
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
S First Revision Shee 90D
Canc g
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Original Sheet 90D
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
Sl1t III IY SA • 'rAII] .11-I, LASA a, ka1 .rA',IL,IA. aA - S S L1 t1 iflflXa

-,-y-' -- --
k1 Lf!1'I
.Ir- IIk-1'
• —ay fl!1 - r -1 La. gAT .-T sill naa .',, -- lr.va, - , fl t.T1Y fl! ;a a.
• ftjjj&k-j •&' l&AkUUMQ11WAINQ 1
.JL1L
"Ll'llIII'Al
3.Analysis. Savingo from compact fluorooconto arc dotorminod
Prescriptively.
4.Funding. The Company will provide rebates to customers of $5.00 per
bulb. Customers shall be limited to 5 bulbs per household.
5.Expiration. This. will expire on November 30, 1995.
PROGRAM MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACQUISITION PROGRAM (MAP)
1. Availability. To manufacturers of new HUD-Code manufactured (mobile)
housing which also meets the Bonneville Power Administrations regional
MAP specifications and receives electric service from the Company under
tariff Schedule 1 for space heating. Determinations of qualification for MAP
are made by state energy offices.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The s i gton Water wer mpany
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. Second Revision Sheet
Can
LP.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90E
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
90E
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
2. Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under this
program are as follows:
3 Analysis Savings for MAP homes are determined Prescriptively based
upon calculations performed during development of this regional program
4 Funding The Company will pay $1,500 to the manufacturer of each
qualifying MAP home (constructed on or after October 25, 1994) and
$2,500 for MAP homes constructed or on after April 1, 1992 but prior to
October 25, 1994 in addition to a $150 per home administrative payment to
the Bonneville Power Administration. Funding may be reduced or
eliminated if the Bonneville Power Administration reduces or eliminates
funding to manufaoturoro.
S. Expiratien This program will inGlude hcmes manufactured through Marcri
31, 1998 All IflrOiCêS must be received by Mareh 31, 1997 in erder te
-qualify for funding.
regional specifications
I .&p I1'IIII
Measure Measure Life
All components and construction of the 30 years
manufactured housing meeting MAP
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by Th&W ngton Water ower Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
PROGRAM: LIMITED INCOME RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
1.Availability. To any Owner of a residential dwelling in which a Limited
Income Customer receives electric service from the Company under tariff
Schedule 1. The dwelling must have permanently installed electric heat,
and the Limited Income Customer must use at least 4,000 kWh per year for
space -heating in order to qualify for weathorization funding. The Agency
will qualify customers for assistance under this program using the federal
low income guidelines.
2.Measures. Company-approved measures eligible for installation under
this program are as follows:
Measure Measure Life
Building thermal moacuroc:
Ceiling insulation 30 years
Wall insulation 30 years
Floor insulation 30 years
Infiltration control 10 years
Water heating measures
Water heater insulation blanket 5 years
Changeout of electric space heat to natural
gas space heat
25 years
Changeout of electric water heat to natural
gas _water _heater
25 years
S Second Revision Shee 90F
Canc
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90F
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
IWa..., _.. _npy .111 pa.pyp a..wt.xp r ..y..s2TIIa. r..v
IN
:rnLiffI:rrtuIIjIjrj ifJiIJ!1i1)]]J JLUUIIDWT1I1t -
'- -
II L]I EX.A l i.i I&LA k1I II L A 1211A A11 I Ii ELA..
Whenever possible, the replaced electric equipment, for which the
Customer is receiving funding, shall be removed and destroyed. If the
equipment cannot be removed, then the heating function will be disabled.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by Th&W ington Water Eower Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
0 Cand1W
First Revision She
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Original Sheet 90G
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
90G
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
3.Analysis. A Site Specific or Prescriptive analysis will be performed to
estimate energy savings levels of measures prior to installation. For
qualifying Limited Income Customers, the Agency will perform the analysis.
4.Funding. Upon completion of the installation of measures, the Company
will reimburse the Agency as follows. Funding for no moro than
previous tanifo in WWP'o combuod Washington and 4daho service areas
Measure Funding Level
Weatherization 400/kWh
dwelling up to $1,600 per unit
Space Heat Conversion 230/kWh
up to $2,050 perfumpoc
Water Heat Conversion $650.00
F! r r .. y. a .L..1 ..y yiH .i JW.1 . rvy-i •
LJUfUJ Fl I J,Pf111! :rri':'rii --,- •--= .nfl- - - .a-s.ns1 p1. ••Sfl
PROGRAM: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC
1. Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under Schedule 21, 25, or 31 or special contract for firm electric
service, or any Owner developing a new commercial or industrial facility
that will receive service under Schedule 21, 25, or 31 or special contract for
firm electric service.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
we Issued by The W •ngton Water P r Company I By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
2. Measures. Company approved measures eligible for installation under this
program are as follows:
Measure Measure Life
HVAC and Refrigeration
HVAC and Refrigeration - Unitary 10 years
HVAC and Refrigeration - Central 15 years
Heat Recovery 15 years
Chillers 20 years
Controls
Energy Management Systems 10 years
Motors and Drives
Motor and Drive Systems 15 years
Fan, Compressor and Pump Systems 15 years
Other Process __
Other Process Modifications 15 years
.
S Second Revision SheeAW
CandWg
LP.U.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 90H
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
I
Additional measures may qualify for funding under this program. Such
determination shall be at the discretion of the Company.
3 Analysis The Company or a-qualified Contractor performs Site Specific or
Preocnptivo determinations of the electric demand side management
-potential using standard engineering practices and methods.
4 Funding To qualify for funding under this tariff, the Applicant must do one
of the following prior to December 2., 1996.. 1) begin development of a
Company-approved engineering analysis in accordance with a Company-
approved scope of work; or 2) receive formal acceptance from the
Company of an engineering analysis of savings performed at Applicant's
direction and expense; or 3) match project savings measures with
Company-approved prescriptive measures and return applications/forms to
the Company. In addition, projects must be completed and all invoices and
verification necessary to process customer grants should be received by
the Company on or before December 2, 1007. The Company will provide
funding to the Customer on a Site Specific basis equal to the lesser of
1) 50% of the Incremental Measure Cost or 2) an amount equal to
Company-approved estimated first-year kWh savings times 50 per kWh.
Funding will include the Company's shafe of the cost of Site Specific
studies or services performed by the Company or Contractors on the
Applicant's behalf. Funding for no more than $1,890,000 over the period
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The Washington Water Power Company
By b , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
u1CL
. Second Revision She I
CandWWg
I.PU.C. NO. 25 First Revision Sheet 901
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
- fSTST1 IIY•JJ _y .i — a si. 1?T tTYAYAYAVj UflF1flh1JlirL1I1iJUfJIr•
i:wctitir r r iiir ir -' — I2SS1 L LI S
- u_J_II JJ W.V.c A'i'l-J III 'Ai L'1g
-
-
- NTIff liii] Ji!4 T1I1ItWJ L110I I J10101UUWJTU!
-
- 1riwn1n1Ji'irnrriIn1 1i1A'r!,:lcrFm l:'ii1scr4I'I_
- — 1iI1wslt 1'TrLTurIrL!II!J! J!L1!1I4 ..............
__Jfi1rtnwawtiruuisin J'tai,'Ir__
fl
TfJ 1fljf -_•A I •Iuu I1. A LS1 (I!• 1 A I 1k lu k!z-! Ik L'A I
I' Ufl 1W1 i1AJ rcffp 1LT1F.'
III MIT
-
u,irc1'ri r ___
— 1 ' 'Ill '11 l'i'l " triri ri i-'— - £ I I I — L •1L4 1L L1 1 I L1t L 11L
Ii L I I L II L11 t 11IA A J
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by T7Wton Water F wer C mpany
By
b
Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. Third Revision She I 901
Canc
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Second Revision Sheet 90J
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
9. F1TV I. -. .._. Will —pFevide funding ?
Specif ic basis tip to the lessef of 1) $20,006 per buildimg, 2) actual
ri tiiwuiui
include the Gernpany's share .1 .1w east e4 &my Site Speeifie studies
behalf. Total eleet0e plus natuFal gas funding feF this pilet
limited to $200,000 ever the pef;ed 1996 n-i- n-i. — rr-zii - A a A III - ii
.J kI4!JI J ilL! LL' LTjitJJi,L.,
ILTI IrITflJi1iJlJJ1DL1Tr 4I1J[i UJil &WI 1kfl1
T[ffEIBfl u -

I.- .n-ri a-- -s .rrZ. aYa- -a the n-1.'1 .p-jr.. a
.-s-I.1-11I1 -i-I
PROGRAM: PILOT OOMMCflOIAL/INDUSTRIAL TRADE ALLY
1.Availability. To any commercial or industrial Customer receiving electric
service under Schedule 11, 21, 25, or 31 or special contract for 4is- electric
service, or any Owner developing a new commercial or industrial facility
that will receive service under Schedule 11, 21, 25, or 31 or special
contract for firm electric service.
2.Description. The Company will work with Customers and Trade Allies to
identify energy -savings projects that in the Company's opinion are not
occurring due to identifiable market barriers. To qualify for assistance
under this tariff, the Applicant must have done the following: 1) identified or
be actively working with a contractor to identify an energy efficiency project,
2) selected a contractor(s) that will perform services or provide equipment
for the energy efficiency project. The Company will provide assistance to
overcome market barriers that may include any of the following:
1) independent evaluation of project, 2) customer education regarding
potential savings, 3) measurement and evaluation of project 3aving3,
1) guarantee of project savings, or 5) any other seMce that may be agreed
to by the Customer and the Company. Qualifying measures to be
evaluated include energy management system and controls, variable
speed drive systems, ventilation air oontrols, lighting, and other measures
subject to funding requirements below.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The-Washington Water Power Company
By
4. j thY C '
,Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. First Revision She 90K
Canc g

LP.U.C. NO. 25 Original Sheet 90K
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
8.— jTrV I. - . GeFapaFiy wi ll I ..v_wi ? fundin@tT7 te the Guste !JWtlliW1WiJJI1[ JJW1JT11 TLI1IL%1L_
— LmT1.rrIunrrlrs:rI —
—
—
behalf. Total eleetrie plus matural gas funding for this pilet
limited W I1JJJI4J,1I_J_LjI I IJJJJ perind - •• . — .--- ' — _.•1.AII- I
• 4. £Ij - and JT1jJrt rq.Ljpfli rwti_
rr ruir i -
LL I L i I.-i'1- LLi by the.
Germpamy on A - A.J LJL A-i1-1II I
—

PROGRAM: RESOURC MANAGER
ff lIjr J4 11JLI1!$J11L*lIJ*1iI.UMII$!WJllfUL 1UJWrlPi
total of one- Camsengatiop Mapager (RCM) will be pFevided - -Rde fLI

vfl j p-I• _ — r L must 11 SIp S A --adGptioRpAef II guidelines II flbased an
order of eligible reguestc, in writing, received by the Company'
2. Description. WWP will guarantco the salary of a full time Resource
Consorvation Manager (ACM) to be hired by school district(s) to reduce the'
consumption of energy through operations and maintenance
improvements. The ACM will develop and implement with collaboration
-,by prineipals, teaehers, and students -an "energy and resure -
eon3ervation plan" to Include lighting, heating, and reporting guidelines for
facilities operations
This is a market transformation program designed to promote
energy savings and demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of improved
operations and maintenance within existing facilities. WWP will fund
tracking computer acquisition, training, and associated travel. Program
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The-Washington Water Power Company
By - .- Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
\ _J.
First Revision She 90L
Canc g
I.P.U.C. NO. 25 Original Sheet 90L
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 90 - continued
I P&

.I-
(1U &
J ..yy t4lI iI I • 1 Y 6;;-,-'-g-I.J.. T1 T TYi the niii:w

(WSF=O). tiuw -
-dia#iets-must agree to continue operations and monitoring efforts upon the
expiration of the:BGM position through adoption of policy guidelines based

I Total 1'J plus TT1 .r-T.T? tIW I - 11.T I
lometpd te $6Q,QQQ- ever the peFied 1995 thFough 4996, RA-t. ;Rr-11-11i
-
]1iiT1J!JT 1J!JF L

°•
'
p Ufl p -pp ta wpr. . .nn iIA Ia I t U . i !L.
- 4. ExpiralliJfl_I111._
T 1 u'' and 1 t 1 tAI VA
kVwill I U expire 1IA I U 111 I L'1
GENERAL RULES AND PROVISIONS
Service under this schedule is subject to the General Rules and Provisions
contained in this tariff and is limited to facilities receiving electric service from the
Company.
All installations and equipment must comply with all codes and permit
requirements applicable in the state of Washington and be properly inspected, if
required, by appropriate agencies.
The Company may establish specifications regarding any demand gido
managemcnt measures and modifications to be effected under this schedule and
may conduct inspections to insure that such specifications are met.
In addition to other funding limits that may exist in specific programs under this
tariff, commercial and industrial Customers participating in any
commercial/industrial programs in this tariff shall be limited to receiving $100,000
per calendar year per Site for funding of qualifying projects by the Company.
Excess funding amounts not paid can be carried over into the following calendar
year for payment by the Company, but will be subject to this funding limitation. In
no event will the Company pay more than $200,000 per individual project.
I i Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued byThe Waehngton Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. .
l.P.U.C. No. 25 Original Sheet 91
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 91
EXPERIMENTAL DSM RIDER ADJUSTMENT - IDAHO
APPLICABLE:
To Customers in the State of Idaho where the Company has electric service
available except for Sandpoint, Priest River, Hope, East Hope, Old Town and
immediately surrounding areas. This DSM Rider or Rate Adjustment shall be
applicable to all retail customers for charges for electric energy sold and to the flat
rate charges for Company-owned or Customer-owned Street Lighting and Area
Lighting Service. This Rate Adjustment is designed to recover costs incurred by
the Company associated with providing_Domand Side Management services and
programs to customers.
MONTHLY RATE:
The energy charges of the individual rate schedules are to be increased by
the following amounts:
Schedule 1 - .97O per kWh Schedule 2 - .0460 per kWh
Schedule 11 & 12 - .188 per kWh Schedule 31 & 32 -.07C per kWh
Schedule 21 & 22 - O71-Ø per kWh
Flat rate charges for Company-owned or Customer-owned Street Lighting
and Area Lighting Service are to be increased by 1.55%.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Service under this schedule is subject to the Rules and Regulations
contained in this tariff.
The above Rate is subject to increases as set forth in Tax Adjustment
Schedule 58.
Issued March 3, 1995 Effective March 10, 1995w
*Per IPUC Order No. 25917
Issued by The Washington Water rower ompany
By b Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration I
Eleventh Revision Sh B
Canc g
l.P.U.C. No. 26 Tenth Revision Sheet B
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
INDEX PAGE - IDAHO
Schedule Sheet
No. Title of Sheet No.
TitlePage ........................................................................................ A
Index................................................................................................ B
Definition of Rate Area .................................................................... C
101 General Service - Firm - Idaho . ....................................................... 101
ill Large General Service - Firm - Idaho .......... .................................... 111
112 Large General Service - Firm - Idaho.............................................. 112
121 High Annual Load Factor Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ..... 121
122 High Annual Load Factor Large General Service - Firm - Idaho ..... 122
131 Interruptible Service - Idaho (Off Peak) 131
132 Interruptible Service - Idaho (Off Peak)........................................... 132
140 Incremental Pricing Surcharge Rate - Idaho . . . . . . . ...................... 140
142 Incentive Gas Credit - Idaho ............................................................ 142
146 Transportation Service for Customer-Owned Gas . ......................... 146
149 Special Purchase Gas Cost Adjustment - Idaho . ............................ 149
150 Purchase Gas Cost Adjustment - Idaho . ......................................... 150
151 Gas Extension and Relocation Schedule ........................................ 151
153 Temporary Service .......................................................................... 153
154 Rural Gas Service Connections ...................................................... 154
155 Gas Rate Adjustment ...................................................................... 155
158 Tax Adjustment Schedule ...............................................................158
Rules and Regulations ....................................................................170
Contingency Plan for Firm Service Gas Curtailment ....................... 182
190 Demand Side Managornent Program.100
191 -ExperimentaI DCM Rider Adjustment - Idaho..................................191
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective March 10, 1995*
*Per IPUC Order No. 25917
Issued by The shington Water Power Company
By , Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. 0 191
I.P.U.C. No. 26 Original Sheet 191
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
SCHEDULE 191
EXPERIMENTAL DSM RIDER ADJUSTMENT - IDAHO
APPLICABLE:
To Customers in the State of Idaho where the Company has natural gas
service available. This 96MRider or Rate Adjustment shall be applicable to all
retail customers taking service under Schedules 101, 111, 112, 121, 122, 131, and
132. This Rate Adjustment is designed to recover costs incurred by the Company
associated with providing Demand Side Management services and programs to
customers.
MONTHLY RATE:
The energy charges of the individual rate schedules are to be increased by
the following amounts:
Schedule 101 -:2580 per Therm
Schedule 111 & 112 - .2150 per Therm
Schedule 121 & 122 - .1390 per Therm
Schedule 131 & 132 - .1710 per Therm
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Service under this schedule is subject to the Rules and Regulations
contained in this tariff.
The above Rate is subject to increases as set forth in Tax Adjustment
I
Schedule 158.
Issued October 26, 1994 Effective January 1, 1995
Issued by The W hington Water Power Company
By Manager, Rates & Tariff Administration
. .
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF )
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY )
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND )
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION )
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR )
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND )
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS )
ATTACHMENT C
ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTS
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
. S
Resource Conservation Manager
1995 1996 Pilot Program
The Resource Conservation Manager pilot program has been a highly successful program
which WWP proposes to not only continue but to expand in the upcoming years
The following questions and answers refer to our experience during the 1995 to 1996
pilot program
Question How many RCM positions does WWP support'
Answer. The pilot program supports two RCM positions serving five school districts
in Eastern Washington and North Idaho.
Question What is the financial commitment on the part of WWP')
Answer WWP pledges that the RCM's will be responsible for savings at least equal to
their salary or WWP will make up the difference The maximum amount of
this commitment is $200,000
To a financially conscious school district, this means that there is no down-
side financial risk associated with funding the position. There is a certainty
that the position will be supported either by quantifiable cost savings or by
W'\P.
To date the both RCM's have contributed savings far in excess of their
salaries.
Question Against what baseline are the savings measured against?
Answer: The baseline for the savings are the prior academic year.
Question: What 'resource savings' do the RCM's concentrate on?
Answer: The RCM's concentrate on five categories of resources, electricity, natural
gas, water, sewage and solid waste The majority of the savings that the
positions have produced have been in the electric and gas categories.
Question What proportion of the savings realized by the RCM are energy-related'
Answer At present, approximately three fourths of the dollar savings realized to date
by the participating school districts have been electricity or natural gas
Question When did the program start'
. .
Answer The two RCM's were hired at the beginning of the 1995/1996 academic
year.
Question What are the backgrounds of the RCM's
Answer Both RCM's (Dean Lueck and Warren Bakes) have backgrounds in school
administration as well as resource issues.
Question Are the RCM's involved in the energy-related educational programs as well?
Answer Yes The RCM's participate in sponsoring energy efficiency and resource
conservation presentations and educational projects in their assigned districts.
Question Why hasn't this program been extended to other school districts?
Answer The pilot program was limited to five school districts (three in Washington,
two in Idaho). As a result of the success of the program other school districts
have expressed an interest in participating in the 1997 to 1999 program
Additionally, the RCM concept is being proposed to expand beyond school
districts and into offices as our Green Office program
.

.
Trade Ally Program Pilot
Executive Summary
Introduction:
The Trade Ally Program is a pilot program implemented January 1, 1995 through December 2, 1996. The
program is designed to identii energy savings projects that in the Company's opinion are not occurring
due to identifiable market barriers. In addition, the Trade Ally Program is intended to explore the
potential of customer service DSM (energy services) vs. traditional direct-funding DSM. The concept of
the entire program is partnering with area trade professionals to remove the market barriers that keep
customers from choosing energy efficiency.
Implementation
The Trade Ally Program has 4 major components:
1)Trade Professional Network
2)Technical-Link
3)Financial-Link
4)Training-Link
These components work together to remove the three market barriers to implementation of energy
efficiency projects that the Company has identified
I) Perception of risk and inconvenience
2)Limited access to capital
3)Information on available technology
The objective of the Trade Professional Network is to provide a list of qualified trade professionals as a
resource for customers when selecting trade professionals to work on proposed energy efficiency projects.
Involvement in the network enables trade professionals to be better informed and more effective at
meeting customer needs ;itli the Trade Ally Program. The goat is to foster a partnership with the trade
professionals which creates a in-win-win' situation when the customer implements the energy
efficiency project. the customer reduces their bill, the trade professional gets work and the Company
realizes energy savings.
The Technical-Link works to remove the perception of risk and inconvenience from energy efficiency
projects through:
• Verification of Estimated Savings
• Comprehensive Design Reviews
• Pre- and post-metering to veriv energy savings
These reviews include an assessment of the energy savings of the project and also assist the customer in
determining if the project meets their business needs.
The Financial-Link serves as a clearing house for information on financing energy conservation projects
working to provide customers access to capital moneys. The Financial-Link benefits include
• Low cost financing
• Engineering and financial reviews
• Reduced loan costs and collateral requirements
We have established programs with the following regional financing sources: Sterling Savings
Association, North West Business Development Company (NBDC)(an SBA affiliated non-profit
development Company) and the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR).
The Training-Link is the educational portion of the Trade Alls Program working to provide information
on available efficiency technology and hov to utilize it Over the two year pilot program Training-Link
will have hosted two training seminars involving over 90 participants.
. .
Goals:
As a pilot program the Trade Ally Program had the following budget and energy savings targets:
1995 1996 1995.1996
Budget $88,000 $112.000 $200.000
Energy Savings (kWh) 321,000 876.000 1,197,200
Cost per kWh $0.027414 $0.012785 $0.16706
Actual performance of the program is detailed below:
*7996 performance is estimated based on active projects
Lessons Learned
The Trade Ally Program is a dynamic program which does not rely on direct incentives to promote energy
efficiency. Instead it relies on the Company's ability to remove customers market barriers with service
programs This requires appropriate staffing levels to manage the requests for assistance and participate in
the trade professional's sales process without disrupting it.
Initial start-up and acceptance of the program took a large amount of work and much longer than
originally anticipated Comparison to previous direct incentive programs caused the Company to
anticipate rapid acceptance of the new program and much higher initial participation. Savings in 1995
reflect that this was not the case at all, in fact it has taken all of 3995 and the I quarter of 1996 to realize
significant participation. Now, as individual trade professionals begin to have success integrating the
program into their sales strategy the appeal of the Trade All)' Program and its services are growing
rapidly. In fact rapidly enough to allow the Company to predict exceeding program goals by nearly 100%
This is a testament to the potential long term viability of energy services.
Enery services requires much larger administrative costs per unit than direct funding DSM, but, when
compared on a cost per kWhithcrm basis performs at par if not better than it's counterpart.
ENERGY SAVINGS COSTS COST/K WHI
C/I Site Specific (budgetvalues) 36.704 400 $4,651.000 $0 .1272
Trade Ally Program (forecast results) 2.016.508.45 $200.000 $0.0724
Summary:
The Trade Ally Program pilot has been an unqualified success. Continued implementation of the Trade
Ally Program is recommended and necessary to maintain consistency and diversity in the Company's
DSM portfolio.
1995 1996 1995-1996
Expenditures $46,000 5100.000 $146.000
Energy Savings (kWh) 0 2.016.508.45 2.016.308.43
Cost per kWh SN/A $004959 $00724
1. What does WWP have to do in order to take credit for the energy savings of a project? Are
these Involvement's substantial enough to justify taking credit for the savings?
A For the Trade Ally Program to record the energy savings of a customer's project the customer must
have completed an application to the Trade Ally Program prior to beginning construction and
participated in either the Technical-Link or Financial-Link services of the program WWP has
through focus groups consisting of our Trade Professionals (Manufacture's Representatives,
Distributors, Energy Service Companies and Contractors) identified three market barriers which if
removed make project completion much more likely 1) perceptions of high risk and inconvenience 2)
limited access to capital 3) limited information on technology available. WWP through the Trade Ally
program seeks to remove these market barriers, if the customer has participated in either the
Technical-Link or Financial-Link portions of the program and subsequently completed their project,
we believe that we have been successful and confidently record the associated energy savings.
2 What if there are cost savings or design assistance to a customer that, inadvertently perhaps,
results in higher energy usage' For example, a customer Increases ventilation to improve indoor
air quality as a result of Trade Ally supported involvement?
The particular situation described in the question above has arisen only once to date in the Trade Ally
Program. The project proposed involved the replacement of the existing baseboard heating system and
window shaker cooling system with a air to air heat pump system. In addition to the HVAC system
retrofit the restaurant proposed to increase the outside air intake from the existing condition of 0% to
40% The increase in outside air intake was necessary to correct a negative pressurization in the
restaurant caused by a large kitchen exhaust air fan with no provided make-up air.
The end result of the computer analysis performed on the project is that the total proposed system will
consume an estimated 14,713 kWh more electricity that the existing system This additional
consumption is due entirely to the 40% outside air being brought in to the restaurant under the heat
pump option. The existing system does not bring in outside air. The proposed system offers a much
more comfortable environment but it will consume additional energy. The calculated savings for the
project were as follows
Baseboard Heating System and Window Shaker Cooling System to Air to Air Heat Pump
kWh Savings: 32,260
Outside Air Intake Increase
kWh Increase: 46,973
Total Project Energy Savings
kWh Savings: (14,713)
Total Project Dollar Savings: ($735.65)
WWP's recommendation to the customer was to implement both the HVAC system conversion and
the ventilation improvements The energy saving and dollar savings of the project were presented to
the customer as detailed above. In regards to recording the energy savings of this project, the
determination was made that the individual measures in this project could be implemented separately.
Therefore, evaluation was completed separately for each of the measures. This project was not
completed by the customer but if it had been, the proposed method for recording energy savings
would have been to record 32,260 kWh of savings
S
3.Isn't much of the lighting end-use funding being done under the Trade Ally simply showing
customers bow to comply with NREC at the least cost and not necessarily bow to achieve the
greatest cost-effective savings'
A No to be eligible for participation in the Trade Ally Program. lighting projects must not be impacted
by the NREC Lighting requirements (i.e. no new construction or over 60 0/6 fixture replacement
projects) or show that they are in compliance with the NREC and efficiency measures are above and
beyond NREC requirements In projects that participate in the program we encourage maximizing
energy saving through application of available technology while balancing the budgetary concerns of
the customer.
4.Is there a "first choice" list of engineering firms that the customer can select from?
A Yes, if the customer requires the services of an engineering firm beyond those provided with the
Technical-Link service, engineering firms are included on our Trade Professional List Although, this
list differs from the traditional First Choice" list in that any firm who requests listing can be added
to the list The Trade Professional List serves as a resource to our customers and does not include
WWP endorsement of services.
5.What restrictions, if any are imposed on the customers choice of who reviews their project when
it is outsourced by WWP for a Comprehensive Design Review (CDR)'
A The choice to outsource design reviews is an internal WWP decision based on available staff time and
expertise Reports prepared by the outside engineering firms are review by WWP and provided to the
customer as a WV/P product The customer has no choice on when or who the projects are outsourced
to.
6.Can this program be used as a means to get WWP to pay S1,500 of the design cost of a project
that would normally be borne by the customer?
A No to be eligible for participation in the Trade Ally Program a proposed system must be completely
detailed. System design is not included as a service to the customer.
7 Who does NNW outsource CDR tasks to and why were they selected' How narrowly/widely is
WWP outsourcing such projects, are there "favored" firms and if so sby'
A WV/P currently uses two mechanical engineering firms, Thomas 1. Gerard and Associates and
Dumais • Romans Inc to handle the majority of the CDRs for the Trade Ally Program However, we
have not made exclusive agreements with these firms and retain the right to select other firms for
specific expertise that will benefit specific projects , Thomas J Gerard and Associates and Dumais.
Romans, Inc were selected to perform design reviews for the Trade Ally Program based on long
standing service arrangements svith WWP, knowledge of our programs and a proven ability to deliver
quality reviews at cost effective rates.
S Are any of the Training-Link expenditures related to energy use increasing programs, such as
Indoor air quality?
A No, Training-Link services are targeted at energy efilciency , technology and strategy, specifically,
end-uses which are eligible for WWP programs.
9. What sort of educational materials or programs have been offered under Training-Link? Relate
each of these to realized energy savings.
A Over the 1995-1996 program WWP will have offered two training seminars through the Trade Ally
Training-Link The first was a general lighting technology seminar and was attended by 63
participants the second will be a lighting auditing workshop and it will be attended by approximately
32 participants We have not made an attempt to quantify a direct relationship between training
programs and savings achieved through the Trade Ally Program It as generally assumed that through
education an increased awareness of energy efficiency opportunities will be created and this will lead
to energy savings which can be both directly and indirectly attributed to the program although, WWP
does not track or claim any savings to the Trade Ally program from our Training-Link services.
10. For the Trade Ally Program, what end-uses have been involved and In what proportion? What
end-uses realize the greatest/least savings.
4sur* Owe A•Sswe DcfliOn atal PiCSC% DistiftoW Avg nan Coat Avg Engrns.nn; M-M Avg kWh Saving Avg ThsvTfl Savings
SlO EE-Lighting 32 675% $1034675 $1719 34,752.20 -
$103 MuhiplaMsssuie S 1170% $827665 $13917 7,20638 17013
$92 EE'Misc 2 392% $000 $000
Ei.ctflc Efflcisncy Proj.cts 40 7843% *9.318.93 *34.83 48.08309 25.52
541 EG-Fuel SmtchfFionoce 2 392% $1503000 $000 6,14863
$42 G.Fu&S.iteM.I2O I I 96% 13003000 $000 79,70350
Electric to Gas Projects 3 5.38% $20,000.00 $0.00 30.66659
551 GE-Furnace 7 1373% $435250 $6250 18643 14825
$83 GE-Rodt,ron 1 1.00% $518619 $25125 . 2,54325
Gas Efficiency Projects $ 15.69% *4479.09 $83.84 145.63 447.63 r_-_,
febi ProjcWAverage 51 1 810,75526 $4125 39.53938 9023
11. Bow much of the cost of the Trade Ally Program funded through the DSM rider is being
completed in house.
A The majority of the work done on the Trade Ally Program is completed "in house", to date program
has only incurred costs of S2,103.74 for outsourced CDRs.
12 How mans lenders are involved in the Financial-Link'
A The Financial-Link serves as a clearing house for information on financing energy conservation
projects therefore there is no limit to the lenders that can participate in the program We have
established programs with the following regional financing sources Sterling Savings Association
North West Business Development Company (NBDC)(an SBA affiliated non-profit development
Company) and the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) The characteristics of the loans
offered in each program are detailed below.
STERLING SAVINGS:
Loan Size $5,000 to $100,000
Down Payment: 10%
Loan Term: 5 to 7 years
Interest Rate Prime plus 1% to 2% (adjusted quarterly)
Estimated Fees $150 Application Fee (minimum )
Collateral: UCC filing on improvements
NORTHWEST BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:
Loan Size $5,000 to $100.000
Down Payment: From 0%
Loan Term: Ito 10 years
Interest Rate: Prime plus 2h% (adjusted quarterly)
Estimated Fees: 2% SBA Guarantee Fee
$250 Packaging Fee
$100 Closing Fee
Collateral UCC filing on improvements
Funding Institutions Farmers and Merchants Bank
First Interstate Bank
Inland Northwest Bank
Key Bank
Seattle First national Bank
Sterling Savings Association
United Security Bank
US> Bank
Washington Trust Bank
West one Bank
I -
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES:
Loan Size: $0 to $100,000
Down Payment From 0%
Loan Term I toS years
Interest Rate: 4%
Estimated Fees Variable
Collateral UCC filing on improvements
Funding Institutions: Boise Neighborhood Housing
Boise Valley Credit Union
Capita] Educators Federal Credit Union
Stewart Title of Idaho
Superior Federal Credit Union
Twin Falls Bank and Trust Company
Valley Bank
S . 9
13.How do the interest rates compare with what the customer could get on their own? If the
interest is lower, why are lenders willing to reduce the interest for program participants (i.e.
superior project review,...)'
A The primary barriers to securing financing for energy conservation projects is the lenders credit
position in case of a default, usually lenders only utilize a UCC filing on equipment improvements
which puts them in a higher risk position, the consequence being higher interest rates Through the
Financial-Link program WWP provides the lenders with a report that details the energy conservation
measure the estimated savings and the economics of the project to help the lender realize the
potential cash flows that this type of project initiates
The Sterling program offers market rate loans to Financial-Link participants These loans are very
similar to what the customer may be eligible for from their current bank, in fact, we suggest that the
customers inquire at their current bank to determine what terms they will offer.
The NBDC program offers SBA guaranteed market rate loans to customers whose financial position
may not otherwise allow them to obtain financing
The IDWR program for Idaho customers utilizes a low interest loan program that the tDWR
administers for the State of Idaho. WV'P helps the applicant to prepare the necessary application
materials and includes a report that details the energy conser ation measure the estimated savings
and the economics of the project This satisfies the IDWR savings estimation and economic analysis
requirements for the project and speeds the application process.
14.How many projects have completed a Comprehensive Design Review?
A There are currently 9 projects in various phases which are have utilized the services of
Comprehensive Design Review.
Total Projects 9
$38,395.73
S2.103.74
62.648,55
3.956
Total Cost
CDR Cost
kWh Savings
Therms
15 How mans projects have been financed under Financial-Link
A There are currently 14 projects in various phases which are interested in utilizing the services of the
Financial-Link.
Total Projects 14
Total Cost $168,603.30
kWh Savings 1,036,298
Therms 3,956
. .
16.How many projects have participated In the Technical-Link
A All projects that are involved in the Trade Ally Program are considered as receiving Technical Link
services There are currently a total of 51 active projects in the Trade Ally Program
Total Projects 51
FTotal Cost $312,482.43
kWh Savings 2,016,508.45
ITherms 4,601.75
17.How are the projects distributed through the WWP Sernce Territory?
A Project location distribution is tracked by state between Washington and Idaho
IDAHO TOTALS DISTRIBUTION
Projects 12 23.53%
Measure Cost $102.876.74 32.90%
CDR Cost $0.00 0.00%
kWh Savings 662,280.70 32.84%
Therm Savings 645 14.02%
WASHINGTON TOTALS DISTRIBUTION
Projects 39 76.47%
Measure Cost $209,605.69 67.10%
CDR Cost $2,103.74 100.00%
kWh Savings 1.354.227.75 167.16%
Therm Savings 3.95625 1 85.97%
Electric 11-12 15 29.41%
Electric 21-22 32 62.75%
Electric 72 1 1.96%
Electric 75 3 5.88%
RATE SCHEDULE TOTALS DISTRIBUTION
Gas Jolt 15 29.41%
Gas 111 22 43.14%
Gas 121 0 0.00%
No Gas Service 14 27.45%
18. How are the projects distributed through the WWP Customer Classes?
A Customer class distribution is tracked by rate schedule.
RATE SCHEDULE TOTALS DISTRIBUT ION
L]
Pilot Building Commissioning Program
Program Purpose
The purpose of the Pilot Building Commissioning program is to
Introduce the concept of building commissioning Into WWP's
service territory by conducting a limited test program. The small
test program would help train local firms as commissioning agents
and provide a valuable service to customers participating In the
program These two outcomes may help stimulate a demand and
supply for further commissioning activities In WWP's service
territory.
Program Process
Commissioning Agents Selected
WWP Issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to local engineering
firms and other energy professionals that WWP has worked with on
energy efficiency projects The RFQ was limited to local firms
because WWP wanted to provide building commissioning training
to local firms that would potentially market their services as
building commissioning agents after the program.
Nine firms submitted qualifications for commissioning agents Five
members of WWP's Energy Services group ranked the firms in 6
different categories Three firms were chosen as commissioning
agents for the program and two firms were selected as alternates in
case any of the three chosen agents could not perform
Commissioning Agents Training
WWP hired Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. to prepare
materials and conduct a one day training session on building
commissioning. All of the selected agents plus a few others from
non-selected firms attended this training session.
Participant Selection
WWP notified several dozen of the larger commercial customers of
the program and asked them to call WWP If they were interested In
being a program participant Those customers that expressed and
Interest were asked to fill out a short application that identified
their building and its energy characteristics.
Fourteen customers expressed interest In the program and had
facilities with enough square footage and energy use to warrant
participation These customers were asked to sign contracts that
I
. 0
specified what they could receive under the program and that
allowed access to their buildings.
Pre-Commissioning Audits Conducted
Pre commissioning audits were conducted on 7 buildings that
submitted completed contracts The pre-commissioning audits
Involved a walk-through of the facility by the agent and interviews
with the building maintenance personnel The pre-commissioning
audits identified the large energy using equipment In the building
and the operation and control systems of that equipment
Customers were presented with the agents findings which included
any recommendations for energy efficiency Improvements. This
helped determine If the building was a good candidate for the full
commissioning process Audits were not conducted on two
buildings because the commissioning agents were already familiar
with the buildings and both buildings were good candidates for full
commissioning.
Commissioning of Selected Buildings
Commissioning agents identified 3 buildings that seemed to have
the best potential to undertake the full commissioning process.
Currently, 3 buildings have been selected for full commissioning, 2
newly constructed education buildings and 1 existing hospital.
For the full commissioning process, the agents prepared a
commissioning plan that outlined the procedures and performance
tests the agents planned to conduct on the buildings Agents will
prepare a written report of the commissioning process and their
identification of potential energy savings when they complete the
commissioning tests.
Program Summary
The building commissioning pilot program introduced the concept of
building commissioning to the participating customers and the local
firms selected as agents in the program This Is a first step in developing
building commissioning as a common practice Potential agents
Indicated as part of their submittal of qualifications that commissioning
was not a common practice but that they perceived it to be valuable.
Overall, fourteen customers expressed an interest in participating in the
program. Pre-commissioning audits were completed on 8 customer's
facilities. Full commissioning is occurring on 3 facilities.
Lessons Learned
The WWP pilot program included new and existing buildings ranging
from 30,000 square feet to half a million square feet hospitals Much of
the commissioning work that has been done in the region has focused on
new buildings with higher tech energy efficiency features. Many of the
buildings in WWP's program were older buildings The commissioning
process was more difficult to Implement In existing buildings,
particularly when the buildings were older and didn't contain many
automated control systems or energy efficiency features.
Several of the program participants were older buildings that didn't
contain many automated control systems or energy efficiency features
Building commissioning procedures that have been established in other
regional programs did not lend themselves well to these older structures
Also, participants did not include buildings which had installed a
significant amount of more sophisticated energy efficiency features,
another circumstance which is well suited to building commissioning
Given the pilot program experience and other regional developments.
WWP has decided not to continue its existing building commissioning
program There are several regional efforts underway to develop market
moving programs to promote building commissioning that WWP could
participate in as a more effective mechanism to further building
commissioning In our service territory. One on these programs Is
building operator certification to help train building operators in energy
efficient building operating and maintenance practices A building
commissioning effort closely tied in with new construction under the
non-residential energy code may be more effective by targeting buildings
that are most likely to benefit from building commissioning.
0 0
Building Commissioning
Results from the building commissioning pilot project implemented by WWP as a part of the 1995-1996
DSM Tariff Rider are not yet complete.
There has been substantial time required to recruit prospective customers for this program, identify
building commissioning needs and to fully implement programmic solutions to these needs. Additionally,
once the program has been implemented for a particular customer, additional time is required for the
measures to be fully incorporated into building operations, and then a further period of time is required
before estimates of savings resulting from these measures can be estimated.
As a consequence of the long time lag between program implementation and a final estimate of savings
there is not a quantification of results available as of the date of this filing.
In spite of the lack of final savings estimates, WWP has decided to not offer budding commissioning on a
full scale basis within our service territory. The pilot program has demonstrated that the number of
buildings with the energy management systems capable of supporting improvements is insufficient to
warrant full scale program implementation. Simply put, the simple systems incorporated into most
buildings do not lend themselves to significant improvements in energy efficiency.
It is likely that the most cost-effective components of building commissioning programs will be the
training and certification of building operation personnel. However, such an endeavor is difficult to
undertake on a non-regional basis.
. S
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT D
'95 - '96 PROGRAMS SAVINGS RESULTS
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
C/1 ss
CJITA
Building Commissioning
RCM
NREC
N/A 160 36,662,500 26,840,406 $ 4,651,183 $ 3,128,674
N/A 33 700,867 =___ 2,147,672 $ 200,000 $ 146,621
N/A - , - 7flftR7 - - 8 8
N/A - 700,867 1,400,000 $ 98,000 $ 69,141
N/A - 9,636,000 9,636,000 $ 477,793 ,$ 405,640
TOTAL
Commercial
20,600 12,817 46,725,000 51,362,281 $ 3,659,760 $ 4,896,909
. S
Washington Water Power Company
Total Washington and Idaho
1995-1996 DSM Tariff Rider Savings and Expenses
Electric Programs
Residential Budget
Units
Projected
Units
Budget
Savings
Projected
Savings
Budget
Cost
Projected
Cost
Schedule 67
MAP - Energy Elf.
MAP - Fuel Elf.
Compact Fluorescent
Natural Gas Awareness
kVeatberization LL
Energy Efficiency-1.1.
CAT Force
325 1,614 585,000 3,396,038 $224,581 $764,884
500 1,086 2,000,000 5,759,768 $ 900,697 $ 2,656,091
125 8 500,000 92,760 $ 225,174 $ 10,893
15,000 5,827 1,080,000 419,544 $ 145,726 $ 197,300
3,600 3,600 37,260,000 37,260,000 $ 574,667 $ 150,000
500 218 1,000,000 540,356 $ 390,983 $ 174,091
550 464 4,200,000 3,893,815 $ 1,097,932 $ 854,972
OF- 0 100,000 - $ 100,000 $ 88,678
TOTAL N/A 193 48,401,100 40,024,078 5 5,626,976 5 3,682,614
Electric Total N/A 13,010 95,126,100 91,386,359 $ 9,286,736 $ 8,739,523
Tariff Rider Revenue $ 8,836,169
Difference $ 96,646
Natural Gas Programs
Residential
Weatherization R.L
High Elf. Appliance Ed.
Weatherization LL
100 363 21,500 94,4851$ 75,271 $ 324,329
N/A N/A 156,000 - $ 422,8041$ -
20 87 3,000 26,9351$ 22,571 $ 89,111
101AL 120 45U 1b0,SUU 1211820 5 &=1b"S 41S,441
Commercial
(:A SS
C/I TA
Building Commissioning
RCM
N/A 12 192,000 829,445 1 331,981 $ 349,350
N/A 12 20,000 2,292 $ 16,667 $ 14,825
N/A - 20,000 - $ 16,667 $ 11,478
N/A - 20,000 - $ 16,667 $ 31,153
TOTAL
Natural Gas 1à
Tariff Rider.
Difference
Grand Tota1
Tariff RidRe
DifferenEe:
N/A 24 252,000 831,737 $ 381,981 $ 406,806
N/A 474 432,500 953,157 $ .902,627 $ 820,246
$ 870,948
$ 50,702
N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 766,$8 $ 9,559,769
$ 9,707,117
$ 147,348
Attachment D Pagel
. .
Washington Water Power
Manufactured Home Acquisition Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
300 -
250
200 -
150 - -- - ---- -- - - - - - - - - - -
a &o n
.WA uID
Utility Cost by State
Idaho
41%
Washington
Utility Cost by Function
General Measurement & Implementation 2% Evaluation 6% 0%
Customer
Payments
Washington % Idaho % Total
Units Acquired 453 59% 321 41% 774
Savings (kWh) 2,392,000 58% 1,702,000 42% 4,094,000
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 5,280 5,302 5,289
Direct Program Cost $1,035,476 59% $726,292 41% $1,761,768
Implementation Cost $65,573 59% $46,307 41% $111,880
General Cost $18,357 60% $12,318 40% $30,675
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost $1,119,406 59% $784,918 41% $1,904,323
Average Customer Payment $2,286 $2,263 $2,276
Additional Customer Cost $0 $0 $0
Utility Payment as % of Total 100% 100% 100%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh) 46.80 46.10 46.50
Levelized Utility Cost (0/kWh) 4.50 4.50 4.50
Levehzed Total Cost (0/kWh) 4.50 4.50 4.50
M. Updike 10/16/96
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(kWh)
Direct
Program
Costs
ImpI.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Levelized
Cost Per
kWh
Additional
Customer
Costs
January 1995 I 6,000 50 $575 50 $0 $575 $0
February 1995 15 84.000 $34,500 $3,399 $37 $0 $37,936 4.38 $0
March 1995 mwwr 22 132 000 $55,000 S4,960 $414 " $0 $60 374 April 1995 0 0 $0 $1,164 $1,431 SO $2,595 0.00$ SO MAY 1995 ' 0 0 $0 $216 $160 ' $0 June 1995 26 152.000 $63,781 $5,207 $60 $O $69,048 4.41 $0
July 1995 19 98,000 $39,956 $6597 $557 $0 $47 164 r467$ $0
August 1995 39 224.000 $104,060 $2,487 $1,071 $0 $107,618 4.660 $O
September 1995 "' ""' ''" 265 1 332,000 $510,950 $9,994 $397 '' SO "tSSI 342 24$ ' $0 October 1995 65 314,000 $137,840 $9,060 $1,591 $0 $148,490 4.590 $0 November 199"' - ' 82 452,000 $188,650 $10,232 $2,042 -7'7, $0 " $200,924 7 "132$ •"" $0
December 1995 128 678.000 $102,337 $306,229 $2,193 SO $410,760 5.88 $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 662 3,472.000 $1,297,068 $360,120 $9,954 $O $1,667,142 4.660 $0
January1996 '77. 112 622,000 $464,700 (1290,467) $9,668.. 0 5j()f ••
February 1996 0 0 $0 $13,550 $0 $O $13,550 0.00$ SO
March 1996 0 0 $O $4,252 $0 $O $402
f,____
T'7bO 00$ ' $0
April 1996 0 0 $0 $9,343 $2,897 $O $12,240 0.000 SO
MaY1996 -. 0 0 $0 $6,311 $1,906 '$O " 5L217 "0.00$ 77'$()
June 1996 0 0 $0 $1,865 $3,239 $O
0
$5,105 0.00$ $0
u1y 1996..... 0 $O $4,106 $1,729 S0 $5,36 " 0.00$ $0
August 1996 0 0 $0 $2,799 $1,281 $0 $4,080 0.00$ $0
September 1 99
October 1996
November 1996
December 1996
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 112 622,000 $464,700 ($248,240) $20,721 $0 $237,181 3.700 $0
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 774 4,094.000 $1,761,768 $111,880 $30,675 $O $1,904,323 4.52$ $0
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 770 4.072,842 $1,752,663 $0 $0 $0 $1,752,663
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 0 0 $O $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 1.544 8,166,842 $3,514,431 $111,880 $30,675 $24,000 $3,680,987 4.38$
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 500 2,000,000 $753,200 $94,783 $28,714 $24,000 $900,697 4.37$
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET 1,044 6,166,842 $2,761,231 $17,097 $1,962 SO $2,780,290
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER MWH: $27.33 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST: 7.34$
S
Ill
ELECTRIC - MAP ENERGY EFFICIENCY
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - MAP ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WASHINGTON
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs
anuary 1995 UAT 0 0 50 $545 $0 SO $545 $0
February 1995 7 40.000 $16,500 $1,773 $34 $O $18,307 $O
March 1995 14 94,000 $35,000 $3,290 $185 $O " 09,47t '•" SO
April 1995 0 0 50 $854 $585 $O $1,440 SO may, ''f" ' 0 0 $0 $159 $103 SO " $262 77= "P $0
June 1995 0 0 $181 $1,231 $42 $O $1,454 $0
uly 1995 " 3 16000 57950 52002 $125 $O t10071 "
August 1995 27 154,000 $70,236 $1,650 $278 $O $72,164 $O
.eptember 199 "' ""' " 161 802 000 $346 650 $7 267 $199 717- "34,116
October 1995 29 144,000 $65,314 $5,245 $1,066 SO $71,625 50
November 1905. '"• ' 52 288,000 $117.650 $7,636 $1,266 $0 $126,552 ''
December 1995 79 422.000 $101,294 $189,893 $1,477 $0 $292,665 SO
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 372 1.950,000 $760,776 $221,546 $5,358 $0 $987,680 SO
anuary 1996 '"" ' 81 442,000 $274,700 ($178,344) $6 ,391 $0 5102,747 $0
February 1996 0 0 50 $4.556 $0 $0 $4,556 $O
March 1996 0 0 $0 $3,086 $0 SO $3 086 $0
April 1996 0 0 $0 $4,485 $1,623 $0 $6,108 $0
may 1996 0 0 $O $4,233 $923 $0 55,156 $0
June 1996 0 0 $0 $919 $1,991 $0 $2,910 $0
My 1996 0 0 $0 $3,143 $1,106 - $0 $4,250
August 1996 0 0 $0 $1,949 $964 $0 $2,913 $0
September 1996 ' - $O SO $0 $0 $0
October 1996 50 50 $0 $0 $0
November 1996 - . $0 $0 $0 $ *0
December 1996 50 50 SO $O SO
ANNUAL I996TOTAL 81 442.000 $274,700 ($155,973) $12,999 $0 $131,726 $0
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 453 2,392.000 $1,035,476 $65,573 $18,357 $0 $1,119,406 SO
.
M Updike 10/16196
ELECTRIC - MAP ENERGY EFFICIENCY, IDAHO
Savings Direct Mess. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Imp!. General Evil. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs
January 1995 1 6,000 $0 $30 $0 $0 $30 $0
February 1995 8 44,000 $18,000 $1,626 $3 $0 $19,629 $0
i44arch 1995 ' 8 Ww 48 000 $20 000 $1,670 $230
April 1995 . 0 0 $0 $310 $846 SO $1,155 $0 may 1995 0 0 $0 $57 $58 $0 TI4 " $0
June 1995 26 152.000 $63,600 $3,976 $18 $0 $67,594 SO July 1995 16 82 000 $32 000 34,593 $433 SO "'$i1O2
_____
""r' ' So
August 1995 12 70.000 $33,824 $837 $793 $0 $35,454 $0
September too 530 000 $224300 $2,719 $198 $0 "'$221.226
October 1995 36 170,000 $72,526 $3,814 $525 SO $76,865 . $O
4ovember199c'....... 30 164,000 $71,000 $2,596 $776 $0 "$14.fl2 ''TY'T "
December 1995 49 256.000 $1,042 $116,336 $716 $0 $118,095 . $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 290 1,522,000 $536,292 $138,574 $4,596 $0 $679,462 $0
31 180,000 $190,000 ($112,123) $3,277 7. $81,154 •. :' $0
February 1996 0 0 50 $8,994 SO SO $8,994 $0
March 1996 ' ' " 0 0 $O $1167 $O $0 $1,167 •'•"
April 1996 0 0 $O $4,858 $1,274 $0 $6,132 50
fay 1996 0 0 $0 $2 078 $983 SO " 53061 '
June 1996 0 0 $0 $946 $1,248 $0 $2,194 $0
luly 1996 0 0 $O $963 $623 ' So '"'"S1 ,St6
August 1996 0 0 $O $850 $317 $0 $1,167 $O
September 196 SO SO " SO " $0 7777......
October 1996 $0 $O $0 $0 50
ovember 1996 ' '" "' $0 SO
December 1996 50 $0 SO SO $0
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 31 180.000 $190,000 ($92,267) $7,722 $0 $105,455 $0
[~O-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 321 1,702,000 $726,292 $46,307 $12,318 $O $784,918 $0
.
S
M Updike 10/16/96
. .
Washington Water Power
Electric Weatherization Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
4 6
a
4.6
s CS Ch ON (71 011 Ch
uWA mID 11
Utility Cost by State Utility Cost by Function
Cknaw Meaure,nent &
Evaluation
lrnemcntat,on 0%
18%
Cusiomer
Washington % Idaho % Total
Units Acquired 103 65% 55 35% 158
Savings (kWh) 266,189 67% 128,167 33% 394,356
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 2,584 2,330 2,496
Direct Program Cost $69,885 69% $30,769 31% $100,655
Implementation Cost $14,320 64% $8,228 36% $22,548
General Cost $2,572 57% $1,948 43% $4,520
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost $86,777 68% $40,946 32% $127,723
Average Customer Payment $678 $559 $637
Additional Customer Cost $63,398 $22,270 $85,668
Utility Payment as % of Total 52% 58% 54%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh) 32.60 31.90 32.40
evelized Utility Cost (0/kWh) 3.20 3.10 3.10 LLevelized Total Cost (0/kWh) 5.50 4.80 5.30
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - RESIDENTIAL WEATHERIZATION
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Levelized Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Imp!. General Eval. Utility Cost Per Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs kWh Costs January 1995 ..................................................... 25 72,449 $19,232 $1,947 SO SO $21,179 . 2.84w $12,344 February 1995 10 27.793 $6.457 $1,946 $152 $O $8,555 2.990 $5,567 March 1995 8 13 747 $6,079 $1,397 $230 $0 0.7W $2,619 April 1995 23 62,918 $16,634 $845 $520 SO $18,000 2.780 $10,349 MAY 1995 _____ ERM 5 13079 $6907 $335 $115 717 47 $10260
- . . June 1995 2 7,840 $2,585 $1,548 $93 $0 $4,226 5.230 $347 July 1995 2 159 $3774 $1759 $161 $6 $5694 "'14766 ' $618 August 1995 6 1.354 $5,122 $588 $269 SO $5,979 42.870 $4,158 eptember 1995" AY 7 3 345 $i 926 $306 $80 " SO $2 112 65 05 $1 934 October 1995 . . 9 18.739 $1,377 $1,198 $45 $0 $2,621 1.360 $4464
12 30,257 $5,482 $1,044 $267 " So -. $6,793 2.lsr $6,838 December 1995 14 31,829 $16,014 $638 $218 $0 $16,870 5.150 $6,347 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 119 280.509 $91,589 $13,553 $2,150 SO $107,292 3.71 $65,864
IS 46,813 ($4,384) $1,170 S22 $0 ($3,192, (0.66) $1,321 February 1996 I 2,775 $751 $1,384 $445 $0 $2,580 9.020 $484 March 1996 8 13,349 $3,392 $1,754 $172 $0 S5,31 ''"3.87~ $3,317 April 1996 10 38.429 $5,752 $1,218 $332 $O $7,303 1.84 $6,162 May 1996 ' "v ' 3 7,037 $2,064 $820 $249 June 1996 0 0 $385 $471 $434 $O $1,290 0.000 SO uly 1996.77..'Y - 2 5,444 $1,106 $865 $442 $O $20412 '77"1 W '1I,122 August 1996 0 0 $0 $1,312 $275 SO $1,587 0.000 $0 September 1996 "•. .- ..- -
October 1996
lovember 1996 .. . . .. .
December 1996
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 39 113,847 $9,065 $8,996 52.370 SO $20,431 l.74 519,804
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 158 394.356 $100,655 $22,548 $4,520 SO $127,723 3.140 $85,668
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 7 17.471 $4,459 $999 $200 $O $5,659
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 32 78.871 $20,131 $4,510 $904 $35,000 $60,545
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 197 490.699 $125,245 $28,057 $5,624 $35,000 $193,926 3.840
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 500 1.000,000 $279,000 S58,051 $18,932 $35,000 $390,983 3.80
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET (303) (509.301) ($153,755) (S29,994) ($13,308) SO ($197,057)
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER MWH: $57.18 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST: 7.34
M Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - RISIDF.NTIAI. WEATHERIZATION, WASHINGTON
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Imp!. General Eval. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs January 1995 . IS 47,251 $14,432 $1,017 $0 $O $15,450 $9,797 February 1995 7 20.018 $4,990 $1,204 $64 SO $6,258 $4,629
match 1995 6 12,208 $4473 $571 $125 $0 $5170 $2187
April 1995 16 52.090 $13,353 $639 $102 SO $14,094 $9,256
'' "'' ' " May 1995 5 13079 $6.907 $237 $77 $0 $7 221 10,260
June 1995 . . 2 7,840 $2,319 $957 $62 SO $3,339 $347
uly 1995 " " I 81 $3,554 $1,034 $97 $0 ' $4 685 ''" "" $398
August 1995 I 457 $1,907 $514 $144 SO $2,565 $1,131
.ieptetnber I99 "' "r" 2 129 $1,738 $309 $62 109 ' ' $1 ,423
October 1995 8 12,882 ($1,593) $638 $45 SO ($909) $3,821 November l99' "''"" 8 22,177 $3,691 $853 $154 $0 '"S4,698 '" " $5,188
December 1995 9 23,769 $7,528 $625 $165 SO $8,318 $4,518
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 83 212.181 $63,301 $8,600 $1,097 $0 $72,998 $52,954
Januaty 1996 77 9 27,138 ($600) $90! $21 $0 -
February 1996 I 2,775 $751 $1,126 $293 $0 $2,170 $484
March 1996 "" 4 4,277 $1,369 $1,291 $125 $0 $2,786
April 1906 3 12.469 $2,651 $602 $274 $0 $3,527 $3,060
M2311996 r'
"'" 1 1,905 $735 $450 $124 SO 11,309 $162
June 1996 0 0 $385 $241 $212 SO $838 .so
July 2 5,444 $1,294 $441 $290 e9t,l22
August 1996 0 0 $0 $667 $135 $0 $803
. ...
$0 eptemberl996 $O $0 SO $0 7.77" M.
October 1996 $0 $0 SO $O
ovember 1996 $0 SO
December 1996 $0 $0 $O $0
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 20 54.008 $6,585 55.720 $1,475 SO $13,779 $10,444
LT~O-YEARGRANDTOTAL 103 266,189 $69,885 $14,320 $2,572 $0 $86,777 $63,398
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - RESIDENTIAL WEATIJERIZATION, IDAHO
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program ImpI. General Eval. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs January 1995 7 25,198 $4,799 $930 $0 $0 $5,729 $2,547 February 1995 3 7,775 $1,468 $741 $88 $0 $2,296 $938 vfarch 1995 2 I S39 $i 605 $826 5105 $0 $2 536 $452
April 1995 7 10,828 $3,281 $206 $418 $0 $3,905 $1,093 i4ay 199 0 0 $0 $98 $38 SO $136
_____
''' $0 June 1995 0 0 $266 $591 $31 $0 $888 $0
uly 1995 " I 78 $219 $72 $64 SO " '1009 $219 August 1995 5 897 $3,214 $75 $125 SO $3,414 $3,026
September 1995 I 16 $189 ($3) $18 ' $0 $203 $512
October 1995 I 5,857 $2,970 $561 $0 $O $3,530 ix
$643
November 199 4 8080 $1791 $191 $114 $0 : I.T. 71111,01 "Emst 650 December 1995 5 8,060 $8,487 $13 $53 $0 •••$8,552 $1,830
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 36 68.328 $28,288 $4,952 $1,053 SO $34,294 $12,910
;anuary 1996 6 19,675 ($3,784) $269 $0 SO Si,514 $2912 February 1996 0 0 SO $259 $151 $0 $410 $0 March 1996 ' " - 4 9072 $2 023 $463 $47 $0 $2,533 '' $2 JO April 1996 7 25.960 $3,102 $617 $58 $0 $3.777 $3,102 May 1996 1 2 5,132 SI 329 $370 $125 $0 S1.03 7'" $1,231 one 1996 0 0 SO $230 $222 $0 $453 $0 July 1996 0 0 ($188) $424 $152 SO $387.. '"••.• so August 1996 0 0 $0 $644 $140 $0 $784 $0
eptember 1996 $0 $0 SO $ '"': .
October 1996 $0 $0 $O $0 November 1996 $O SO SO - $0
December 1996 $0 $0 $0 $O
•!•__•• .......
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 59,839 $2,481 $3,276 $895 $0 $6,652 $9,360 19
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 55 128.167 $30,769 $8,228 $1,948 $O $40,946 $22,270
.
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
S •
Washington Water Power
Compact Fluorescent Rebate Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month

ON as 01% Olt ON CN ON ON a .6
WA IID.
Utility Cost by State
IdahS Washington
Utility Cost by Function
General Measurement &
6% Evaluation
0%
Customer
Payments
IniPatlon 56%
38% da 1

Washington % Idaho % Total
Units Acquired 4,194 72% 1,633 28% 5,827
Savings (kWh) 301,968 72% 117,576 28% 419,544
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 72 72 72
Direct Program Cost $32,510 76% $10,435 24% $42,946
Implementation Cost $16,758 57% $12,719 43% $29,478
General Cost $2,420 50% $2,457 50% $4,877
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost $51,689 67% $25,612 33% $77,300
Average Customer Payment $8 $6 $7
Additional Customer Cost $39,300 $14,615 $53,914
Utility Payment as % of Total 45% 42% 44%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh) 17.10 21.80 18.4
Levelized Utility Cost (0/kWh)
Levelized Total Cost (0/kWh)
3.40
6.00
4.30
6.80
3•7
6.20
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - COMPACT FLUORESCENTS
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Levelized Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Cost Per Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs kWh Costs
January 1995 51 3,672 $0 $766 $0 SO $766 4.14w $279
February 1995 616 44,352 $2,566 $1,003 $60 $0 $3,629 1.620 $5,016
March1995 '' - 140 10,080 $1429 $946 $123 ' $0 '$249S "4920 $1295
April 1995 258 18.576 $839 $1,687 $311 $0 $2,838 3.030 $2,292
iAay 1995 260 18,720 11 ,293 $1 ,589 1246 $0 17M.Alf 3320 $2299
June 1995 575 41,400 $3,964 $8,607 $455 $0 $13,026 6.250 $4,135
Fuly 1995 324 21,328 41,460 $2309 $903 SO v 54681 " 98 $2 976
August 1995 249 17,928 $4,823 $3607 $354 $0 $8,784 9.730 $2,115
September 1995 672 48384 $329 $1703 $591 SO " $553 2280 $7061
October 1995 435 31.320 $3,714 $902 $276 $0 $4,892 3.100 $4,360
November 1995....... " .........- 1,126 81,072 $10,969 $1,752 $208 SO $12,929 3.170 ' $10,477
December 1995 951 68,472 $5,354 $1,624 $390 $0 $7,368 2.14 $9,791
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 5,657 407,304 $39,678 $26,494 $3,918 $0 $70,090 3,420 $52,095
January 1996 '" ....... 134 9,648 $1,527 $1,566 $51 SO U1145 - 6.47w $1,351
February 1996 34 2.448 $582 $686 $627 SO $1,894 15.36 $460
4arcb1996 2 144 $293 $218 $101 SO $61! ' g4.2t " 59
April 1996 0 0 $271 $103 $37 $0 $410 0.000 $O
64ayI996 ........................ ' 0 0 $595 SO $21 ' $0''$615 0.0O$''i$0
!ijne 1996 0 0 $0 $O $0 $O $0 0.000 $0 July 1996 0 0 $0 $371 $0 $0 .Sill 70.O0 "• $0
August 1996 0 0 $0 $41 $122 SO $163 0.000 50
September 1996 ................. ...
October 1996 Oc -
November 1996
December 1996
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 170 12,240 $3,267 $2,984 $959 $0 $7,210 11.690 $1,819
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 5,827 419,544 $42,946 $29,478 $4,877 SO $77,300 3.660 $53,914
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 0 0 $0 $5,896 $975 $10,000 SI6,871
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 5.827 419,544 $42,946 $35,373 $5,852 $10,000 $94,171 4.460
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 15,000 1,080,000 575,000 $47,244 $13,481 $10,000 $145,726 2.680
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET (9.173) (660,456) ($32,054) ($11,871) ($7,629) $0 ($51,555)
IMPLEMENTATIONS PER MWH: $70.26 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST: 3.300
.
.
M Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - COMPACT FLUORESCENTS, WASHINGTON
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program ImpI. General Evil. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs lanuaIy 1995 •.. 42 3,024 $0 $383 $0 $0 $383 $210 February 1995 495 35,640 $1,608 $501 $24 SO $2,133 $3,984
March 1995 '' 86 6,192 $978 $510 $52 Si) ""• -' $866 April 1995 183 13.176 $579 $1,019 $91 $0 S1,689 $1,708 May
1995yl
181 13032 $903 $902 $122 $O f'U21 " '• Si 705 June 1995 450 32,400 $3.053 $4,347 $237 SO $7,636 $3,073
226 16,272 $993 $1,327 - August 1995 Ill 12,312 $3,508 $2,263 $184 $0 $5,956 $1,518 September I 99r' r --_- 439 31,608 $2,521 $1129 $273 53922 October1995 294 21.168 $3,157 $653 $166 SO $3,976 $3,013 November 190-77M,''---' " 792 57,024 $8.723 $1,135 $158 "'$0 '$10,016 December 1995 690 49,680 $3,836 $1,021 $220 $0 $5,076 $7,185
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 4.049 291.528 $29,858 $15,191 $1,966 $0 $47,014 $37,834
anualy 1996 119 8,568 $1,333 $1,072 $34 $0 $2,439 •:t '
February 1996 26 1,872 $442 $336 $349 $0 $1,127 $362
March 1996 0 0 $218 $109 $37 77 $O $i64 April 1996 0 0 $200 $51 $23 $0 $275 $0 4ay1996 - ' 0 0 $459 SO $11 $0 $410 ' PIT
'' So June 1906 0 0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO uly, 1996 "v" •• 0 0 SO SO $0 '' '' $O August 1996 0 0 $0 SO $0 SO
SO
$0 $0 .eptember 1996 1 "
$O SO """ $0 "
October 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jovember 1996 ' $0 SO $0 50
December 1996 $0 $0 SO $0
' " ......
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 145 10.440 $2,652 $1,568 $454 $O $4,675 $1,466
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 4.194 301.968 $32,510 $16,758 $2,420 $0 $51,689 $39,300
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - COMPACT FLUORESCENTS, IDAHO
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Customer Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs costs Costs Costs January 1995 •. : . . ;. 9 648 $0 $383 $383 . $69 February 1995 121 8.712 $958 $501 $36 SO $1,496 $1,032 Match 1995 54 3888 $451 $436 $71 $0 *957 " $429 April 1995 75 5,400 $260 $668 $221 so. $1,149 $585 lay 1995 79 5,688 $390 $687 $124
June 1995 . 125 9,000 $911 $4,260 $218 $0 $5,389 $1,062 uly 1995 98 7056 $476 $982 $464 *0 SI 22 $876 August 1995 78 5.616 $1,315 $1,344 $170 SO $2,828 $597 September
233 16,776 $738 $574 $318 .''' SO $1,631 """•' *2.403 October 1"5 . 141 10.152 $557 $249 $ill $0 $916 $1,347 " "' November 1995 334 24,048 $2,245 $616 $51 SO """"12,011 - $2,661 December 1995 261 18.792 $1,519 $603 $170 $0 $2,292 $2,606 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 1.608 115,776 $9,820 $11,303 $1,952 SO $23,076 $14,261
lanuaty 1996 "' '"'' 15 1,080 $194 $495 $17 $0 $247 February 1996 8 576 $140 $350 5278 $0 $768 $98 March 1996 " ' " - - 2 144 $75 $109 $63 SO $247 '" "
"" $9 April 1996 0 0 $71 $51 $14 $0 $136 . $O may 1996 0 0 $135 SO $10 $0 '"''$146 $0 June 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO uly 1996 '-'' * 0 0 $O $371 SO August 1996 0 0 $0 $41 $122 $0 $163 $O 3eptember 1996' "
October 1996 SO $0 SO $0 November 1996 '"" '" ' ' . $0 $0 $0
..
December 1906 $0 SO SO $0 ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 25 1.800 $615 $1,416 $505 $0
-- $()..
$2,535 $354
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 1.633 117.576 $10,435 $12,719 $2,457 $O $25,612 $14,615
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
Utility Cost by State
Idaho
34%
Washington
66%
. .
Washington Water Power
Commercial/Industrial Electric Site Specific Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
IV
a
RWA mID 1
Utility Cost by Function
Measuroment &
Evaluation General oil
Customer
Payments
52%
lnWlemen
37%
Washington % Idaho % Total
62 60% 42 40% 104 Units Acquired
Savings (kWh) 5,477,324 56% 4,239,674 44% 9,716,998
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 88,344 100,945 93,433
)irect Program Cost $398,918 60% $262,389 40% $661,307
mplementation Cost $339,378 72% $135,269 28% $474,647
General Cost $66,879 65% $36,095 35% $102,974
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $36,107 85% $6,188 15% $42,295
Total Utility Cost $841,281 66% $439,942 34% $1,281,223
verage Customer Payment $6,434 $6,247 $6,359
dditional Customer Cost $1,790,210 $365,772 $2,155,981
Utility Payment as % of Total 18% 42% 23%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh) 15.40 10.40 13.20
Levelized Utility Cost (0/kWh) 1.90 1.30 1.60
Levelized Total Cost (0/kWh) 5.90 2.40 4.40
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - COMMERCIAIJ1NDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC
Savings Direct Mess. & Total Levelized Additional
Jobs Achieved Program ImpI. General Eval. Utility Cost Per Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs kWh Costs
January 1995 .,., 2 133,108 $0 $18,600 $0 $5,278 323,878 2.22w $41,048
February 1995 5 412.900 $28,761 $32,853 $1,306 $3,717 $66,637 2.000 $33,992
March 1995 5 909,575 $82,849 $24,361 $3,674 ' $8t Miii 176 T70Ø *83 190
April 1995 I 18.870 $1,530 $27,067 $6,806 $1,270 $36,673 - 24.070 $8,825
'' May 1995 13 450 384 $23 925 $24 527 $3 843 "'i1W45 '-,M -'---i 47 $36,38
June 15 . . 99 13 275,580 $23,243 $29,983 $6,813 $2,032 $62,071 2.790 $84,267
July 1995 "' ______ 7 615 158 $15053 $22 038 $3,689 $1j4 $41 ,22 0 830 $106 028
August 1995
-
4 218,283 $16,568 $23,847 $3,238 $3,556 $47,209 2.680 $46,380
September I995 r" 11 835,022 $64,557 '120,975 S3,363 *2489 "'$9I 384 """'"'1 360 *131 260
October 1995 2 490.489 $34,440 $31,439 $3,232 $0 $69,111 1.740 ___ $37,135
"" '-', November 1995 '" 3 152,916 $9,988 $17992 $7,127 "' $660 $35 hi8 __""2 900 *224 077
December 1995 8 929,167 $63,596 $25,610 $4,317 $2,461 $95,984 1.280 $61,597
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 74 5.341.352 $364,509 $299,298 $46,808 $24,130 $734,744 1.700 $894,185
6 203,947 $16,501 *28,805 *823 *2,598 $48117 T260 $3,2i6
February 1996 . 8 1,434,275 $51,552 $51,677 $12,058 $2,122 $117,410 1.010 $763,372
farch 1996 -. •' 2 178,798 $42063 ($4371) $6289 47416 *51391 1560 $142,968
anuary 1996 .........................................
April 1996 5 1,652,219 $100,559 $19,842 $854 $4,027 $125,282 0.940 $211,438
May 1996 ' ' '"''"'"" 2 331,442 $23,423 $27,857 *1,764 *1,638 $54,682 ."2.040 '$20,343
June 1996 I 402 $27,552 $13,536 $13,970 $365 $55,422 1,707.320 $27,632
uly 1996 " "'"" " 2 338 595 $25 442 $20299 $14 051 *0 S5,792 'u" '2 100 " (*0 lO0
August 1996 4 235,968 $9,707 $17,704 $6,356 $0 $33.767 1.770 $71,908
. . . .
October 1996
ovember 1996
.....................................
. _,r.,_.
December 1996
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 30 4,375,646 $296,798 $175,349 $56,166 $18,165 $546,478 1.550 $1,261,797
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 104 9.716,998 $661,307 $474,647 $102,974 $42,295 $1,281,223 1.630 $2,155,981
September1996 .....................................................................................
(7,790,565)1
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS NA 19,154,937 $1,532,395 $94,929 $20,595 $0 $1,647,919
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS NA 0 $0 $0 $0 $157,705 $157,705
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION NA 28,871,935 $2,193,702 $569,576 $123,569 $200,000 $3,086,847 1.320
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET NA 36,662,500 $2,855,150 $1,207,181 $388,852 $200,000 $4,651,183 1.570
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET NA ($661,448) ($637,605) SO ($1,564,336)
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER MWH: $48.85 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST: 4.500
.
.
M. Updike 10/16196
ELECTRIC - COMMERCIAIIINDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC, WASHINGTON
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Customer Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs January 1995 I 102,599 $0 $14,347 $O $5,278 $19,626 $34,701 February 1995 4 00.815 $8,102 $26.044 $906 $2,974 $38,025 $8,021 Match 1905 3 445,900 $76847 $16,845 $2713 $381 ""t96786 $53665 April 1995 I 18,870 $1,530 $18,033 $2,997 $1,143 $23,703 $8,825 May 1995 •'- r' 72,844 $20.075 9 $17,673 $2,166 $762 June 1995 II 257,906 $20.857 $22,876 $4,637 $1,905 $50,275 $80,861 V. MIM uly 1995 5 549,682 $7719 $16723 $2315 ¶1143 " $27900 $101 196 August 1995 2 36.877 $3,327 $19,642 $2,321 $3,556 $28,846 $24,265 ''' September 199 6 451,907 $42 440 $17 571 $2 367 $1 905 $64 285 $87 738 October 1995 0 0 ($10,256) $19,273 $2,577 $0 $11,595 SO 4ovember1995. 2 135,091 $8,127 $7,856 $4,651 $470 :$21IO3 " "'$222,726 December 1995 5 520,925 $38,014 $18,542 $1,520 $1,646 $60,622 $31,315 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 49 2.683,416 $217,682 $215,429 $29,167 $21,163 $483,441 $664,446
anuary '. " r' 0 0 $208 $17,460 $624 $1,961 7 $20,254 '' $0 February 1996 3 922,129 $21,599 $43,926 $5,684 $1,724 $72,933 $705,072 -. . . March 1996 :• 2 178,798 $35,933 ($11,187) $4,885 $6,593 $36,225 ' $142,968 April 1996 3 1,380,333 $100,313 $14,745 $0 $3,072 $118,129 $197,338 May 1996 - I 122,594 $9791 S21,209 ¶732 $1,229 $32,961 une 1996 0 0 ($80) $9,422 $9,976 $365 $19,683 . $0 uly 1996 " 1 76 $3,765 $14,567 $11,343 $0 $29,674 .11 ' $12,577 August 1096 3 189.978 $9,707 $13,806 $4,467 $0 $27,980 $58,418 ''".'T September 1996 $0 SO SO $0 ' "....
October 1996 $0 $0 $O SO
iovember 1996 $0 $O SO $0 '"'
December 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0
ANNUA 1996 TOTAL L 13 2,793.908 $181,235 $123,949 $37,712 $14,944 $357,840 $1,125,763
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 62 5,477,324 $398,918 $339,378 $66,879 $36,107 $841,281 $1,790,210
n
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL SITE SPECIFIC, IDAHO
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(kWh)
Direct
Program
Costs
ImpI.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Additional
Customer
Costs
January 1995 I 30,509 $0 $4,253 $0 $0 $4,253 $6,347
February 1995 1 322,085 $20,660 $6,809 $400 $743 $28,612 $25,971
match 1995 "v " "i 2 363,675 $6001 $7522 $961 $0 " $14484 $29525
April 1995 0 0 $O $9,034 $3,810 $127 $12,970 $0
day 1995 4 377,540 $3850 $6854 31677 $381 '"1'$176t "E" '"$25252
June 1995 2 17.674 $2,386 $7,107 $2,176 $127 $11,796 $3,406
July 1995 ' 2 65476 $7 334 $5 315 5773 $0 gIj 422 $4,831
August 1995 2 181,406 $13,241 $4,205 $917 $0 $18,363 $22.116
September 100 383,113 $22,117 $3,40 5996 1584 77$27.106 =7 $43,522
October 1995 2 490,489 $44,695 $12,166 $655 $0 $57,516 $37,135
i4ovemberl995 " I 17725 $1862 $10136 12477 "$190 - $14665 ... $1,351
December 1995 3 408,242 $24,681 $7,068 $2,798 $814 $35,362 $30,282
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 25 2.657,936 $146,826 $83,870 $17,641 $2,967 $251,304 $229,739
anuaty 1996 "..............................6 203,947 $16,293 $11,345 $199 S6i '
44
4J4.7 '1'.
February 1996 5 512.146 $29,953 $7,751 $6,375 $398 $,476 $58,300
March VW "'' " 0 0 $6129 $6815 $1404 ' $822 $15,172
______
''" $0
. April 1996 2 271.886 $246 $5,097 $854 $955 $7,153 $14,100
May 1996 ............ I 208,848 $13,633 $6,648 $1,031 $410 $2t,721 r'' '• $10,953
June 19 96 I 402 $27,632 $4,114 $3,993 $0 $35,739 $27,632
lily 1996 T'".'" ...........
1 338,519 $21,677 $5,732 $2,708
August 1996 I 45,990 $0 $3,898 $1,889 $0 $5,787 $13,490
September 1061-l"77"T"'! 777 7:777.7777 $0 $0 . SO $0 7=r7 "'
October 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0
''$21
36
,677
lovember 1996 . . $0 $0 $O $0
. .' ,.
December 1Q96 $0 $0 $0 $0
ANNIJALI996TOTAL 17 1,581,738 $115,563 $51,400 $18,454 $3,221 $188,638 $1,033
-j TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 42 4.239,674 $262,389 $135,269 $36,095 $6,188 $439,942 $365,772
.
M Updike 10/16/96
. S
Washington Water Power
Manufactured Home Fuel Efficiency Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
kn
0
WA le ID
Utility Cost by State
Idaho
24 OW 79%

ash gton
Utility Cost by Function
Measurement &
cmwal Evaluation
Ak
1mplementat
49%
Washington % Idaho % Total
Units Acquired 7 88% 1 13% 8
Savings (kWh) 81,165 88% 11,595 13% 92,760
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 11,595 11,595 11,595
Direct Program Cost $3,625 88% $500 12% $4,125
Implementation Cost $3,592 74% $1,295 26% $4,887
General Cost $625 71% $257 29% $882
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost $7,842 79% $2,052 21% $9,893
Average Customer Payment $518 $500 $516
Additional Customer Cost $0 $0 $0
Utility Payment as % of Total 100% 100% 100%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh) 9.70 17.70 10.70
evelized Utility Cost (0/kWh) 0.90 1.70 1.00
Levelized Total Cost (0/kWh) 0.90 1.70 1 1.00
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - MAP FUEL EFFICIENCY
Savings Direct Mess. & Total Levellzed Additional
Jobs Achieved Program ImpI. General EvaL Utility Cost Per Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs kWh Costs January 1995 0 0 $0 $562 $O $0 $562 0.00$ SO February 1995 0 0 $0 $725 $39 $O $764 0.00 SO March 1995 MEN 0 0 50 $269 $84 $0 ' $154 b.00$ $0 April 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $68 SO $68 0.00$ SO May 1995 .' 0 0 SO $44 $0 So $44 000$ SO June 1995 0 0 SO $18 $12 SO $30 0.000 $0 July 1995 'q 'r' 0 0 50 $O $2 August 1995 I 11.595 $500 SO $0 SO $500 0.42$ SO epteniber 1995 1 11 595 5500 SO $O SO $500 '" 0 42$ " $0 October 1995 I 11.595 $0 $500 SO $0 $500 0.42$ $0 November 199S ...' " 0 0 $500 ($475) $0 $0 $25 ' 0.00$ $0 December 1995 4 46.380 $2.625 $0 $5 50 $2,630 0.550 $0 ANNUAL I995TOTAL 7 81.165 $4,125 $1.642 $211 $0 55.977 0.71$ $0
anuary 1996 ' T 'T' 1 11,595 $O $0 $0 $0 SO 0.00$ $0 February 1996 0 0 50 $0 $O $0 $0 0.00$ SO March 1996 . 0 0 $0 $0 $0 April 1996 0 0 $0 $3,225 $0 $0 $3,225 0.000 $0 May 1996 . ' 0 0 $0 $20 $661 So ' 56R1 0.00$ SO June 1996 0 0 $0 $O $10 $0 510 0.00$ SO uly 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00$ SO August 19% 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O 0.00$ SO September 1996 ' .' •?'!'.
October 1996
lovember 1996
December 1996
ANNUAL 19% TOTAL I 11,595 $0 $3,245 $671 SO $3,916 3.28 SO
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 8 92,760 $4,125 $4,887 $882 $0 $9,893 1.04$ $0
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 0 0 50 $0 $O $0 $0
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 0 0 $0 $O $O $0 SO
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 8 92.760 $4,125 $4,887 $882 $O $9,893 1.04$
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 125 500.000 $188,300 $23,696 $7,178 $6,000 $225,174 4.37$
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET (117) (407,240) ($184,175) ($18,809) ($6,297) ($6,000) ($215,281)
I I
IMPLEMENTATION
I
$ PER MWH: $52.68 1995 COMPARISON
I I
AVOIDED COST: 7.34$
________
U
.
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - MAP FUEL EFFICIENCY, WASHINGTON
Savings Direct Mess. '& Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Evil. Utility Customer Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs January 1"5 , jc . 0 o SO $441 $0 SO . $441 . $0 February 1995 0 0 $0 $483 $28 $O $511 $O March 1995 R M 0 0 $0 $207 $50 SO 525* April 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $37 $0 $37 $0 May 1995 0 0 $0 $29
'. une 1995 . 0 0 50 $18 $8 SO $25 SO uly 1995 --r-------- "". " 0 0 $0 $O $2 ''" 52 August 1995 _____ I 11.595 $500 $0 $O SO $500 . $0 September 1003"M71 0 0 $0 $O SO SO
October 1995 I 11.595 $0 $500 $0 $0 $500 $0 "''"7' November 199 0 0 5500 ($47S) $0 S0 $25 SO December 1995 4 46,380 $2.625 $0 $5 $O $2,630 $0 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 6 69.570 $3,625 $1,203 $129 50 $4.957 $0
'''• armory Mgt.7777777 1 11.595 $O $0 $0 $0 February 1996 0 0 SO $0 $0 SO SO $0 Maith 1996 " "'"" _' 0 0 SO $0 SO $0 SO $0 April 1996 0 0 50 $2,375 SO SO $2,375 . $O
' May 1996 0 0 SO $14 $489 SO 5503 ' June 1996 0 0 SO SO $7 $0 $7 $0 uly 1996 " 0 0 $0 August 1996 0 0 50 $0 SO SO SO SO 3eptember 1996 $0 SO $0 ' -' —$O '' $0 October 1996 $0 50 50 50 $0 November 1996 T SO $O ••••$() •$ $0 December 1996
.
$0 $0 SO SO $0 ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL I 11.595 $0 $2,389 $495 50
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 7 81.165 $3,625 $3,592 $625 $0 $7,842 $O
.
U.~
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - MAP FUEL EFFICIENCY, IDAHO
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Customer Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs January 1995 : 0 0 $0 $121 $0 $O $121 & SO February 1995 0 0 SO $242 $11 $0 $253 $0 March 1995 0 0 $0 $62 $34
April 1995 0 0 $O SO $31 $0 $31 . $0 May 1995 ' _ 0 0 SO $15 $0 *0 T *0 June 1995 . 0 0 $0 $0 $5 $0 $5 $O uly 1995 -------- 0 0 $0 SO SO ' 0 *0 77 Kk U. August 1995 0 0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 SO e Sptember I ii 595 $500 SO SO *0 'UOO $0 October 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 November 199 0 0 $0 SO $0 $0 '' $0 '" $0 December 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL I 11,595 $500 $439 $81 SO $1,020 SO
0 $0 SO $0 0 .SO $0 February 1996 0 0 $0 SO SO SO $O $0 March 1996 0 0 $O SO $0 April 1996 0 0 SO $850 $0 SO $850 $0 May1996 0 0 $O $6 $172 SO $17 June 1996 0 0 $0 $0 54 SO $4 $0 Iuly 1996 ' ' 0 0 $0 $0 $0 August 1996 0 0 50 $0 $0 SO $0 $O 3eptember ' "'-.-'. 199 $O SO $0 '"$0 .... f
October 1996 50 $O SO SO $O NovernbetlOW."' ?7777 7,, $0 $O $o December 1996 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 0 0 $0 $856 $176 $0 $1,032 $0
IIWO-YEARGRANDTOTAL I 11.595 $500 $1,295 $257 SO $2,052 $0
F
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
Utility Cost by Function
General
3% Measurement &
Evaluation Implementation O.Y.
Customer
Payments
81%
Utility Cost by State
Idaho
. .
Washington Water Power
Schedule 67, Residential New Construction
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
WA uID
Washington % Idaho % Total
1,063 72% 406 28% 1,469 Units Acquired
Savings (kWh) 2,198,929 71% 887,679 29% 3,086,608
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 2,069 2,186 2,101
)ct Program Cost $474,815 86% $74,730 14% $549,545
plementation Cost $68,605 64% $38,390 36% $106,996
Cost $10,962 60% $7,358 40% $18,320
easurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 00/0 $0
Total Utility Cost $554,382 82% $120,479 18% $674,861
Average Customer Payment $447 $184 $374
Additional Customer Cost $0 $0 $0
Utility Payment as % of Total 100% 100% 100%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh) 25.20 13.60 21.90
Levelized Utility Cost (01Wh) 2.40 1.30 2.10
Levelized Total Cost (01Wh) 2.40 130 2.10
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Levelized Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Cost Per Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs kWh Costs
January 1995 . 27 87,859 $5,400 $22,861 so $0 $28,261 3.12$ $0
February 1995 26 70.486 $20306 $1,460 $1,793 $0 $23,559
.
3.240 $0
" Much 1995 157 278240 $54263 $548 $1959s SO $55007 92$ $0
April 1995 0 0 $O $2,656 $98 $0 $2,754 0.00$ SO
May1995 52 124837 $19114 $189 $369 '"$O I9671 153$ ' $0
June 1995 171 378.528 $64,194 $1,637 $52 $O $65,883 1.690 $0
July 1995 '"•" 36 96,915 $23,850 $11,563 $169 " $0 $41 583 ""4 64$ '' $0 7.
August 1995 13 42,884 $17,473 $3,747 $2,461 $0 $23,681 5.360 SO
129 297,583 $40,120 $2 862 $572 " SO " $43,554 '"" 14 2$ '" ' - $0
October 1995 . 46 83,288 $1,138 $7395 $467 $O 1.05 SO
November 1995 220 421,366 $87,544 $504 $1,517 $0 189,565 7 2.06$ " $0
December 1995 70 159,216 $27,764 $1,310 $103 SO $29,177 1.780 $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 947 2,031,202 $361,166 $62,732 $7,797 $0 $431,696 2.060 SO
anuaty 1996 ............................'
"'• 69 160,941 524,950 $247 $41 ' $0 - $25238 f 52$ $0
February 1996 23 52.149 ($2.000) $17,666 $102 SO $15,768 2.94$ $0
March 1996 :'-'•- ............. 1 3,516 $900 $451 $2,337
April 1996 4 14,469 $2,811 $5,413 $65 SO $8,288 5.56$ SO
.................. May1996 219 416,770 $76,655 $833 $1,108 '' lSi$ '$o
June 19 96 20 36.540 $8,820 $765 $442 $0 $10,026 2.66$ $0
uly 1996 ....................................... 115 219,630 $46,003 $18,493 $625 .SO ""$65,l2I 2.88
August 1996 71 151.391 $30,240 $395 $5,803 $0 $36,438 2.340 SO
September 1996
October 1996
Jovcmber 1996
. ,.,., .
December 1096
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 522 1.055,406 $188,379 $44,263 $10,523 SO $243,165 2.240 $0
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 1.469 3,086,608 $549,545 $106,996 $18,320 $0 $674,861 2.12$
.
$0
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 0 0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 0 0 $0 $22,000 $0 $0 $22,000
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 1,469 3,086,608 $549,545 $128,996 $18,320 $0 $696,861 2.19$
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 325 585,000 $146,750 $60,240 $17,591 $0 $224,581 3.73
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET 1,144 29501.608 $402,795 $68,756 $729 $0 $472,280
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER MWH: $34.66 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST: 7.34$
.
.
M. Updike 10/16196
ELECTRIC - RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION, WASHINGTON
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Achieved
(kWh)
Program
Costs
Impi.
Costs
General
Costs
Eval.
Costs
Utility
Costs
Customer
Costs Januaty 1995 .......................................... . 10 39,169 55.400 $11,570 $0 $0 $16,970 $0 February 1995 Marc 8 20,141 $11,700 $296 $730 $O $12,727
. .
$0
" 129 226252 $53370
$0 $48 $31 $0 $53949 April 1995 0 0 $O $1.893 $98 $0 $1,991 SO Ma V199jln $9600 $144 $227 $0 '"$9 971 June 1995 98 247,399 $51,990 $1,145 $38 $0 $53,173 $0 idly 1995 36 86915 $17100 $16864 $116 August 1995 3 10,916 $12,540 $2,712 $2,341 SO $17,592 $0 September 1995 'MUM 200,970 $31,260 91 $1 ,939 $327 SO $33 426 - $0 October 1995 I 2,350 $0 $322 $270 $0 $592 $0 November 1995 410,102 $86520 $435 214 $78 SO $87032 '" $0 December 1995 19 44,682 $8,820 $810 $84 $0 $9,714 $0 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 631 1,339,250 $288,300 $38,578 $4,338 SO $331,217 $0
29 69,148 $33,295 $155 $27 $0 $35,477 . February 1996 23 52,149 (52,000) $12,339 $51 $0 $10,390 $0 March 1996 '" "•'""". . 1 3,516 $900 $94 $1,312 .•' SO "'.• $2,366 SO April 1996 I 3.960 $900 $3,706 520 $0 $4,626 $0
MAY ' 172 323345 $68168 $453 $763 SO "$69385 " ""' "' SO June 1996 . 20 36,540 $8,820 $223 $213 $0 $9,256 .so uly 1996 .... ......................... 115 219,630 $46,192 $14747 $268 SO ''$59,206 7777MM '"$0 August 1996 71 151,391 $30,240 $310 $3,909 $0 $34,459 $0 September 1996 $O SO $0 -. $0 " SO October 1996 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 November 1996 A. $O SO $0 $0 $0 December 1996 $0 $0 $O $0
•.:................
$0 ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 859,679 $186,515 $30,027 $6,623 $0 $0 432
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 1.063 2.198,929 $474,815 $68,605 $10,962 $0 63_j

$554,382 $0
.
.
M Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION, IDAHO
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Evil. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs
January 1995 :•::.... 17 48,690 $0 $11,292 SO SO $119292 $O
February 1995 18 50.345 S8.606 $1,164 $1,063 SO $101833 SO
March 1995 " ' 28 51 988 $893 $0 $164 SO 'r $1 057 $0
April 1995 0 0 SO $763 $0 $0 $763 $0
May 1995 30 74,483 $9 514 $45 $142 "• $0 700 So
June 1995 73 131,129 $12,204 $492 $14 $0 $12,711 $O
July, 1995 '" 0 0 $6 750 $699 554 r$0
August 1995 10 31.968 $4.933 $1,035 $121 $0 $6,089 _______ $0
Sept ember l995 '" 38 96,613 $8 860 $1 023 $245 ""$ •"$tO 128 " So
October 1995 45 80,938 $1,138 $7,072 $197 $0 $8,408 $0
,Jovember 1995 6 11,264 $1,04 $69 $1 440 ' 'SO 77$2 33
_ ______
- ' So
December 1995 51 114,534 $18,944 $500 $19 $0 $19,463 $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 316 691.952 $72,866 $24,154 $3,459 SO $100,479 $0
Jannaty 1996 ' " 40 91,793 ($8,345) $92 $14 "$O ''U,23 7.
$0
February 1996 0 0 $0 $5,326 $52 $0 $5,378 SO
March 0 0 $0 $357 $965
April 1996 3 10.509 $1,911 $1,706 $45 SO $3,662 $O
May 1996 47 93,425 58487 $380 $345 SO '1"
June 1996 0 0 $0 $542 $228 SO $770 $0
uly 1996 " 0 0 ($188) $5 747 $357 SO ç''v" $S,91
August 1996 0 0 $0 $86 $1,894 SO $1,980 $0
September 1996 - ".r' - $0 SO
October 1996 $0 $0 SO SO $O
November 1996 $O $O $0 '''" "i' $0
December 1996 $0 $0 $0 SO . SO
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 90 195,727 $1,864 $14,236 $3,900 SO $20,000 SO
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 406 887,679 $74,730 $38,390 $7,358 SO $120,479 $0
.
M Updike 10/16196
Utility Cost by Function
Gcnerei
Imptementation 2% Measurement &
Customer
Payments
90%
Utility Cost by State
Idaho
S .
Washington Water Power
Limited Income Electric Efficiency Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
tv
.WA uID
Washington % Idaho % Total
Jnits Acquired 254 70% 110 30% 364
Savings (kWh) 2,580,924 79% 665,721 21% 3,246,645
Savings Per Unit (kWh) 10,161 6,052 8,919
Direct Program Cost $458,414 74% $164,511 26% $622,924
Implementation Cost $46,867 83% $9,718 17% $56,584
General Cost $12,641 83% $2,569 17% $15,210
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost $517,921 75% $176,798 25% $694,719
Average Customer Payment $1,805 $1,496 $1,711
Additional Customer Cost $167,845 $25,576 $193,421
Utility Payment as % of Total 73% 87% 76%
1st Year Utility Cost (0/kWh)
Levelized Utility Cost (0/kWh)
Levelized Total Cost (0/kWh)
20.10
2.00
2.60 1
26.60
2.60
3.00
21 A 4
2.10
2.70
M. Updike 10/16/96
ELECTRIC - LIMITED INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Levelized Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Eval. Utility Cost Per Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs - kWh Costs
January 1995 . II 35,097 $19,200 $2,996 $0 SO $22,196 •.. 6.26$ ($2,078
February 1995 8 107.450 $I.950 $2,374 $211 $0 $4,534 0.420 $25
March 1995 ' 4 10,011 $6,486 $2,557 $278 SO UAIK $9 32T
April 1995 IS 72.995 $17,570 $2,564 $660 SO $20,803 2.82$ $11,973
may 1995 " 0 0 $0 $1 008 $372 $0 U8
_____
' 'OOj! 77::w $0
June 1995 3 12,406 $1,374 $1,180 $283 $0 $2,836 2.26$ $230
Jill 1995 9 24,786 59075 $31 tI21 69$ 030
August 1995 10 06.804 $1,600 SO $4 $O $1,604 0.1()f $6,880
September I99 '" 15 83,302 $21,196 636
October 1995 26 146,286 $71,097 $1,645 $108 SO $72,850 4.930 $20,914
November "" 16 122,794 $17,379 $5,830 $374 SO S2i,584 " 1.90$ $3,658
December 1995 32 236.662 $35,324 $1,143 $1,169 SO $37,635 1.570 $15,009
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 149 948.683 $202,250 $21,964 $3,580 $O $227,795 2.380 $63,034
lattuary 196 . 12 66,973 $24.821 $25,642 $35 ($2,SM)
February 1996 33 309.994 $58,030 $1,625 $8,423 $0 $68,078 2.170 $2,591
March 1996 tO 60,505 $11,989 $851 $216 $0 $13,056 140 $34()
April 1996 58 545.740 $100,430 $1,464 $145 $O $102,039 1.850 $43,868
May 1996 :•.'' 0 0 ($178) $1,805 $300 so $1,926 $0
June 1996 43 553,239 $95,457 $1,292 $938 $0 $97,687 1.750 $38,946
July1996 "' 14 122,653 $24103 $1086 $1,226 SO $26415 "7"2
August 1996 45 638.858 $106,016 $856 $346 $0 $107,218 1.660 $35,723
September 1996............ '--. . -
October 1996 - .. . November 1061,. . .
_______
. :.•.. . -,._.... -r--
December 1996
........
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 215 2,297.962 $420,674 $34,620 $11,630 SO $466,924 2.010 $130,387
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 364 3.246.645 $622,924 $56,584 $15,210 SO $694,719 2.120 $193,421
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 0 0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 74 662.849 $127,179 $11,317 $3,042 $30,000 $171,538
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 438 3.909,494 $750,103 $67,901 $18,252 $30,000 $866,256 2.190
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 550 4,200,000 $1,050,000 $13,496 $4,435 $30,000 $1,097,932 2.59$
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET (112) (200.506) ($299,897) $54,405 $13,817 $0 ($231,675)
1
IMPLEMENTATIONS
I
PER MWH: $17.43
I
1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST: 7.34$
.
M Updike 10/16196
ELECTRIC - LIMITED INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WASHINGTON
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(kWh)
Direct
Program
Costs
impI.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Evil.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Additional
Customer
Costs January 1995 8 17,638 $0 $2,292 SO $0 $2,292 ($1,727) February 1995 8 107,450 S1.950 $1,528 $145 $O $3,623 $25 vtarch 1995 0 0 $O $1,933 $159 SO 52092 " SO April 1995 4 43,907 $5,079 $1,586 $344 $0 $7,009 $9,209 may ' '"' 0 0 50 $677 $190 $868 $0 June 1995 2 8,070 $0 $046 $178 SO $1,124 $6 uly 1995 '" ' k" 5 10,075 $2,119 $31 $96 $0 $2 246 1 943 August 1995 9 85.674 $1,600 $0 $4 SO $1,604 ____ $7,027 September l99 '"' 6 48583 $10418 $326 $0 SO 10,744'... $942 October 1995 16 98,300 $67,467 $1,036 $48 $O $68,551 $18,300
14ovember199'' '' , 11
7 8 53,221 $4,714 $5,332 $250 $0 " $10,297 $976
December 1995 21 156,341 $23,571 $571 $1,031 SO $25,l74 512,795
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 87 630,159 $116,018 $16,260 $2,445 $0 $135,623 $49,586
Fanuaty 1996 10 46.602 $15,634 $25,321 519 40 540197S
February 1996 28 282.171 $48,277 51,115 $8,243 $0 $57,634 $3,449
March 1996 ":' 4 17,400 $2,600 $441 $124 $O $3,165 . .' '"$2,123 April 1996 44 448.102 $82.010 $975 $94 $0 $83,078 $37,682 May1996 . 0 0 $1,120
$52
($387) $201 . $934 . so June 1996 36 494,586 $84,770 $689 7 $0 $85,995 $35,385
l4 48086 $8011 $517 $830 $0 $9,358 ' 56347 1996 41 613,818 $100,572 $428 $158 $0 $101,159 $35,420 tember 1996 SO $0 50
ober I99(, $0 $0 $0 $0
...
vember 1996 . $0 SO $0 S
December 1996 SO $0 SO $0
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 167 1,950,765 $341,496 $30,606 $10,195 $0 $382,297 $118,259
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 254 2.580,924 $458,414 $46,867 $12,641 SO $517,921 S167,845
li
.
M Updike 10/16196
ELECTRIC - LIMITED INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY, IDAHO
Savings Direct I Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program ImpI. General Eval. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (kWh) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs
January 1995 ~XU 3 17,459 $19,200 $704 $0 $0 $19,904 ($351
February 1995 0 0 $0 $846 $66 $0 $912 $0
March 1995 '" 4 10,011 $6486 $624 $119 $0 $7229 ($538)
April 1995 II 29,088 $12,500 $978 $316 $0 $13,794 $2,674
may 1995 0 0 $0 $330 $I2 $0 " $512 "" $0
June 1995 . . . I 3,436 $1,374 $233 $105 $0 $1,712 $225
July lc9S 4 14,711 $6956 $0 $25 " 'SO ''$6 981
__________
" 77"1,081 August 1995 . I 11,220 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 ($147)
3eembrl9 ' 9 34719 $10769 $310 $0 '•"$O •"$11079 $2990
October 1995 10 47,986 $3,630 $609 $60 $0 $4,299 $2,613
iovember 1995 8 69573 $1 2665 $498 $124 'S0 $13281 t6i
December 1995 II 80.321 $11,752 $571 $137 $O $12,461 $2,214
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 62 318.524 $85,333 $5,704 $1,135 $0 $92,171 $13,448
2 20.371 $9,193 $321 $16 IW... $0 $9,530 _• ....
February 1996 5 27.823 $9,753 $510 $180 SO $10,444 ($858)
March - 6 43,105 59.389 $410 $92 $0 $9891
_______
. $1,277
April 1996 14 97.638 $18,420 $489 $51 $0 $18,961 $6,186
MAY 1996 ' r -- ' ' 0 0 $209 $685 $99 $0 $993 - "" $0
June 1996 7 58,653 $10,678 $602 $412 SO $11,692 $3,561
uly i .:•?T ..:r,:!?................ 10 74,567 $16,092 S569 $397 so $j7,Ø5' '"'' " $2,066
August 1996 4 25.040 $5,444 $428 $187 $0 $6,059 $303
September 1996 • . $0 $0 $0 $0
October 19% $0 $0 $0 $0
4ovember 1996 -•
............................ $O $0 SO
December 1096 SO $0 $0 $0
48 ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 347.197 579.I78 $4,014 $1,435 SO $84,627 $12,128
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 110 665,721 $164,51 1 $9,718 $2,569 $0 $176,798 $25,576
n
.
M Updike 10/16196
. I
Washington Water Power
Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Site Specific Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
4
3
2

II T :':

TI Th1TIT 4 i i I I
- — —
tv
.WAiID
Utility Cost by State Utility Cost by Function
M &
Idaho
Evaluation
Implementation
42%
Customer
Payments
45%
Washington % Idaho % Total
Units Acquired 3 75% 1 25% 4
Savings (therms) 87,279 99% 1,057 1% 88,336
Savings Per Unit (therms) 29,093 1,057 22,084
Direct Program Cost $57,070 97% $2,047 3% $59,118
Implementation Cost $35,975 67% $17,960 33% $53,935
General Cost $7,145 62% $4,345 38% $11,490
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $4,714 89% $606 11% $5,320
Total Utility Cost $104,905 81% $24,959 19% $129,863
Average Customer Payment $19,023 $2,047 $14,779
Additional Customer Cost $135,820 $19,259 $155,079
Utility Payment as % of Total 30% 10% 28%
1st Year Utility Cost ($/therm) $1.20 $23.61 $1.47
Levelized Utility Cost ($/thenn) $0.15 $2.92 $0.18
Levelized Total Cost ($itherm) $0.34 $5.18 $0.40
M. Updike 10/16/96
GAS - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(Therms)
Direct
Program
Costs
ImpI.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Fval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Levelized
Cost Per
Therm
Additional
Customer
Costs
January 1995 :. 0 0 $0 $4,307 SO $272 $4,579 0.000 $0
February 1995 0 0 $266 $4,890 $334 $1,115 $6,605 0.000 $0
March 1995 WON 0 0 $194 $3398 $614 $127
April 1995 0 0 $0 $3,753 $1,029 $381 $5,163 - 0.000 $0
may 1995 0 0 $0 $5255 $537 $81 "$6,173 $0
June 1995 0 0 $703 $7,204 $1,471 $381 $9,759 0.000 $0
July 1995 1 43097 $17065 $3790 $742 $571 $22 l6 " '6370 `301,1' 0
August 1995 0 0 $454 $2,289 $558 $190 $3,491 0.000 $0
September 199r " " 1 10,915 $17915 $2534 $347 $0 •'7$20796 '2140 $17581
October 1995 0 0 $621 $4,122 $395 $0 $5,138 0.000 $0
November 1995 " " 0 0 $294 $456 $949 $0 $1,698 0.000 $0
December 1995 0 0 $378 $2,290 $118 $571 $3,357 0.000 $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 2 63.972 $37.888 $44,287 $7,094 $3,991 $93,260 18.050 $114,750
January 0" ..................................................................... I 23,307 $19,207 $1,044 $75 $398 $209724 ..11.0i $21,070
February 1996 I 1.057 $1,275 $1,357 $482 $596 $3,710 43.470 $19,259
March 10%': 77 0 0 $153 $171 $170 $131 $625 0.00w $0
April 1996 0 0 $165 $452 $33 $0 $650 0.000 $0
....... ................. . May 19% . -. . $336 $1,688 $92 $205 - 2,320 0000 ... $0
June 1996 0 0 $94 $2,464 $877 $0 $3,434 0.000 $0
uly1996 0 0 $0 $300 $2,572 $0 $2,873 "')OØ ''$(
August 1996 0 0 $0 $2,171 $96 $0 $2,267 0.000 $0
September 1996
October 1996
4ovember 1996 .
December 1996
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88,336 $59118 $53935 $11490 $5320
---------
$129863 18.210
-------------------
$155079
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS NA 754,297 $377,149 $10,787 $2,298 $0 $390,234
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS NA 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION NA 842,633 $436,266 $64,723 $13,788 $5,320 $520,097 7.640
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET NA 192,000 $288000 $33168 $10812 $0 $331981 21.410
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET NA 650,633 $148,266 $31,554 $2,975 $5,320 $188,116
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER THOUSAND THERMS $61057 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST 42.700
M Updike 10/16/96
GAS - COMMERCIAIJINDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY, WASHINGTON
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
Therms)
Direct
Program
Costs
Impi.
Costs
General
Costs
Mess. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Additional
Customer
Costs
January 1995 :........................ . 0 0 $0 $2,293 $O 5272 . $2,566 SO
February 1995 0 0 $231 $2.059 $145 $1,115 $3,550 $0
Mardi 1995 ''''' 0 0 $148 $2 105 $214 $127 $2594 ' * " ' $0
April 1995 . . 0 0 $0 $2,435 $374 $381 $3,191 $0
May 1995 0 0 $0 $3,585 $292 ' '$4 06 ' $0
June 1995 . . 0 0 $562 $5,436 $941 $381 $7,320 . $0
July 1995 -7 i" Ew 1 43097 $17 012 $2 855 $550 $511 "$20 989 "'" i97 169
August 1995 0 0 $363 $1,678 $396 $190 $2,628 $0 _ ____
1995 " " 1 20875 $17,847 $2,019 $202
October 1995 . 0 0 $400 $2,908 $206 $0 $3,604 . $0
lovembei 1995 " ''' 0 0 $234 $100 $702 $0 $1 036 !7= '" $0
December 1995 0 0 $303 $1,866 $19 $381 $2,570 $0
AUAL99 NN 15 TOTAL 2 63,972 $37,103 $29,339 $4,132 $3,610 $74,184 $114,750
EPP anuity 1996 '' I 23,307 $19,138 $444 $63 $398 $20,042
February 1996 0 0 $200 $1,088 $145 $398 $1,830 SO __ ____
Marc h1996 -'' " - 0 0 $124 $127 $121 $105 $476 T"" $0
April 1996 0 0 $118 $85 $27 $0 $229 $0
may 1996 0 0 $294 $1055 $17 $205
June 1996 0 0 $94 $1,742 $496 $0 $2,332 $0
July 1996 0 0 $0 $150 $2,097 ' $0 $2,247 .
August 1996 0 0 $0 $1,946 $46 SO $1,992 $0
September 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0 - -M MAM
October 1996 $0 $0 SO $0
Jovember 1996 .?'" $o so SO - $0 '
December 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL I 23,307 $19,968 $6,636 $3,012 $1,105 $30,721 $21,070
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 3 87,279 $57,070 $35,975 $7,145 $4,714 $104,905 $135,820
M Updike 10116/96
GAS - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY, IDAHO
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program Impi. General Evil. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (Therms) Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs
January 1995 0 0 $0 $2,014 SO $0 $2,014 $0
February 1995 0 0 $35 $2,831 $100 $0 $3,055 $0
March 1995 0 0 $45 $1,294 $400 $0 $1,738 $0
April 199$ 0 0 $0 $1,318 $655 $0 $1,973 $0
May 1995 ' '• ' ""u' - 0 0 $0 $1 ,670 $245 19 $2 106 '•" ' $0
June 1995 0 0 $141 $1,768 $530 $0 $2,439 $0
uly 1995 "hI 0 0 $3 $934 $192 $0 'V. "? $,17 " $0
August 1995 0 0 $91 $611 $161 SO $863 $0
September 199 ' 0 0 $67 $515 $145
October 1995 0 0 $221 $1,214 $99 $0 $1,534 $0
November 0 0 $59 $356 $247 $662 '".'"' Mr ""$0
December 1995 0 0 $74 $424 $98 $190 $787 $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 0 0 $786 $14,948 $2,962 $381 $19,077 $0
anuaryl996 0 0 $69 $600 $12 SO - $682
February 1996 I 1.057 $1,075 $269 $337 $199 $1,880 $19,259
March 1996 0 0 $29 $44 $49 $26
April 1996 0 0 $47 $368 $5 $0 $420 $0
ivlay 0 0 $41 $634 $74 $o $749 ' J. $0
June 1996 0 0 $0 $722 $381 $0 $1,102 $0
uly 1996 ' 0 0 $0 $150 $475 ' '$0 $625 '.' '"$0
August 1996 0 0 $0 $226 $49 $O $275 $0
September 1996 : $0 $O ' $O $0
October 1996 $0 SO $0 $0
Jovember 1996 $0 $0 .' $0
December 1996 $0 $0 $O $0
L--------- ------------------------------- ---
O-YEAR GRAND TOTAL ---I $19,259
[1
M. Updike 10/16/96
Utility Cost by Function
GmaW
Ifl*mcntat3on. 1% Measwmern&
EvWuadon
vnents
94%
Utility Cost by State
Washington
52%
Idaho
48%
. .
Washington Water Power
Natural Gas Weatherization Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
1
z
[
EWA mID
Washington % Idaho % Total
Units Acquired 226 62% 137 38% 363
Savings (therms) 46,443 49% 48,042 51% 94,485
Savings Per Unit (therms) 206 351 260
Direct Program Cost $153,472 50% $151,495 50% $304,967
Implementation Cost $12,002 76% $3,696 24% $15,697
General Cost $2,704 74% $961 26% $3,665
Measurement & Evaluation Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost $168,177 52% $156,152 48% $324,329
Average Customer Payment $679 $1,106 $840
Additional Customer Cost $176,806 $52,615 $229,422
Utility Payment as % of Total 46% 74% 57%
1st Year Utility Cost (S/therm) $3.62 $3.25 $3.43
Utility Cost (S/therm) $0.35 $0.32 $0.33
[
Leveli.zed
evelized Total Cost (S/therm) $0.72 1 $0.42 $0.57
M Updike 10/16/96
GAS - RESIDENTIAL WEATHERIZATION
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(I'herms)
Direct
Program
Costs
Impt.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Levelized
Cost Per
Therm
Additional
Customer
Costs
'anuary 1995 .. 35 11,216 $15.496 $0 $0 $0 $15,496 13.410 $20,104
February 1995 96 23.008 $148.587 $2.652 $O $0 $151,239 63.810 $56,193
March 80 24234 $73,986 $5,684 $313 $0 $79983 32040 $56089
April 1995 96 22,480 570.864 $1,753 $1,208 $0 $73,825 31.88 554.883
May 1995 M. " " jo 51 13,137 $37,384 $3,022 $252 $0 " $40 61 71.7 6.64o 153 M$1053
June 1995 . . 0 0 ($87) $711 $856 $O $1.480 0.000 ____ $0
2 201 51348 $O $74 $0 '$142i 18710 .tr413
August 1995 3 209 $2,002 SO SO $0 $2,002 93.000 $1,586
Septeniber1995' r 0 0 52.235 $70 $0 '" $0 $2.30 '0.000 $0
October 1995 0 0 ($59,460) $O $10 $0 SO ($59,450) 0.00
November 1995.... '"" 0 0 ($132) $0 $43 $0 ($89) 0.000 to
December 1995 0 0 50 $0 SO $0 $O 0.000 $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 363 94,485 5292,223 $13.891 $2.757 50 $308,871 31.73 $229,422
I t996 0 0 $0 736
February 1996 0 0 50 $O $O $O $0 0.000 $0
match 1996 ............ ' aT 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0''$O'0.00Ø $0
April 1996 0 0 50 $205 SO $O $205 0.000 $0
may Zgrl! 0 0 $69 $368 $42 $0 '"$479 ''000Ø $0
June 1996 0 0 SO $479 $173 $0 $652 0.000
.
$0
uly 1996 0 0 ($69) $377 $577
August 1996 0 0 $12,743 $377 $116 $O $13,236 0.000 50
September 1996 ..-.
October 1996
'Jovember 1996
December 1996
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 363 94,485 $304,967 S15,697 S3,665 $0 $324,329 31.7U $229,422
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 363 94,485 $304,967 S15,697 $3,665 $0 $324,329 33.320
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 100 21,500 S72,700 $2000 $571 $0 $75,271 33.990
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGETIBUDGET 263 72,985 $232,267 S13,697 $3,094 $0 $249,058
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER THOUSAND THERMS $16614 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST 74.200
M. Updike 10/16/96
GAS - RESIDENTIAL WEATHERIZATION, WASHINGTON
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(Therms)
Direct
Program
Costs
Impi.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Additional
Customer
Costs
January 1995 12 2,558 $4040 $0 SO SO $4,040 $8,348
February 1995 69 12,228 $67,836 $1651 SO $0 $69,487 $45,370 larch 1995 50 II 299 $35262 $5085 $172 SO $4O519 $43618
April 1995 55 10,919 $33,078 $1,124 $005 SO $35,107 $43,485 may 1995 35 9029 524 730 51 870 $135 $0 '"S26 13 '" $32 986
June 1995 0 0 ($87) $395 5491 $O $798 $O
july 1995 2 201 $1 348 $0 $40 $0 't,388 '' ' St 413
August 1995 3 209 $2,002 $0 $0 $0 $2,002 $1,586 September I99 "" 0 0 $2 235 $70 $0 SO $0
October 1995 0 0 ($29,584) ($212) $10 $0 ($29,786) $0 November 1995 0 0 ($132) $212 $0 " $0 $0
December 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $O $0 SO $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 226 46,443 $140,728 $10,195 $1,753 $0 $152,676 $176,806
lanuary 1996 '' ''' 0 0 $0 $0 $43 $0 543 50
February 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O $O
' 0 0 $0
$O $0
April 1996 0 0 $0 $205 $0 $0 $205 $0
May 1996 ' - 0 0 $69 $368 $42 $O $479 so June 1Q96 0 0 $0 $479 $173 $0 $652 $0 July 1996 - . - 0 0 ($69) $377 $577
August 1996 0 0 $12,743 $377 $116 $0 $13,236 $0
September 1996 "" SO SO SO $0
October 1996 SO $0 $0 $0
November 1996 $0 $O $0 $0
December 1996 $0 $0 $0 $0
ANNUAL I996TOTAL 0 0 $12,743 $1,806 $951 $0 $15,501 $0
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 226 46,443 $153,472 $12,002 $2,704 $0 $168,177 $176,806
.
El
M. Updike 10/16/96
GAS - RESIDENTIAL WEATUERIZATION, IDAHO
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
Therms)
Direct
Program
Costs
ImpI.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Additional
Customer
Costs January 1995 : 23 8,658 $1 1,456 $0 SO $0 $11,456 $11,757 February 1995 27 10.780 $80.751 $1,001 $0 $0 $81,752 $10.823
' March 1995 30 12,935 $38724 $99 $141 $0 " $39464 '" $12471 April 1995 41 11.561 $37,785 $629 $303 $O $38,718 $11,398
'' " ' May 1995 PE; 16 4108 $12654 $1151 $117 $0 tl3922 $6167 June 1995 0 0 SO $316 $366 $0 $681 $0
V. 0 0 $0 $O $34 "$0 August 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 September I - 0 0 $0 $o so so ......,,
$0
to October 1995 0 0 ($29,875) $212 $0 $O ($29,663)
$34....
$0 November 1995 V". 0 0 SO ($212) $43 $O ($169) $0 December 1995 0 0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 137 48,042 $151,495 $3,696 51.004 $0 $156,195 $52,615
anuary 1996 0 0 $0 $O ($43) SO (543) 50 February 1996 0 0 SO SO $0 $0 SO $0 March 1996 :. 0 0 $o $o $o . so $0 $0 April 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $O SO .$O $O
' . . . May 1996 ......... 0 0 $0 $0 $O SO $0 . so June 1996 0 0 50 $0 SO $O $O $0 July1996 0 $O $O $O August 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 September 1996 . $0 $O $O $0 October 1996 $0 $O SO SO November 1 996 $O $O SO $0 December 1996 $0 SO SO SO ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 0 0 $0 $0 (543) SO ($43) $0
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 137 48.042 $I51,495 $3,696 $961 SO $156,152 $52,615
.
M. Updike 10/16/96
Utility Cost by Function
General Measurement &
6% Evaluation
a)vaents
83%
Utility Cost by State
Idaho
10%
Washington
90%
. .
Washington Water Power
Limited Income Natural Gas Weatherizatlon Program
January 1995 through August 1996
Units Acquired by month
°
WA .IDJ
Washington % Idaho % Total
62 100% 0 0% 62 Units Acquired
Savings (therms) 15,110 100% 0 0% 15,110
Savings Per Unit (therms) 244 0 244
)irect Program Cost $52,424 100% $0 00/0 $52,424
Implementation Cost $2,628 38% $4,315 62% $6,943
General Cost $1,574 43% $2,068 57% $3,642
Measurement & Evaluation Cost SO 0% $0 0% $0
Total Utility Cost Total $56,625 90% $6,383 10% $63,009
Average Customer Payment $846 SO $846
dditional Customer Cost $58,782 $0 $58,782
Utility Payment as % of Total 47% 0% 47%
1st Year Utility Cost ($/therm)
...evelized Utility Cost (S/therm)
$3.75
$0.36
$0.00
$0.00
$4.17
Total Cost (S/therm) $0.74 $0.00
$0.40
$0.78
M. Updike 10/16/96
GAS - LIMITED INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
(Therms)
Direct
Program
Costs
ImpI.
Costs
General
Costs
Mess. &
Eval.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Levelized
Cost Per
Therm
Additional
Customer
Costs
January 1995 5 2,365 so so so $5,749
February 1995 0 0 $42,000 $27 $0 $0 $42,027 0.000 $0
March 1995 0 0 $2,005 $O $3 $0
April 1995 . 0 0 $0 $216 SO $0 $216 0000 $0
May 1995 0 0 $0 $47 $31
June 1995 0 0 $650 $421 $14 $0 $11085 0.000 SO
July 1995 0 0 5650 $0 $46 ' $0 $69d 0 000 50
August 1995 0 0 $18,301 $0 $0 $0 $18,301 0.000 $0
September I995' ."" "' 0 0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 'b.00 So
October 1995 .0 0 ($58,606) $0 $0 $0 ($58,606) 0.00 $0
November 1001 0 0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 0.000 $0
December 1995 0 0 $0 $248 $0 $0 $248 0.00w $0
ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 5 2,365 $5,000 $959 $94 $0 $6,053 24.850 $5,749
'anuaty 1996 0 0 $O $0 $8 $0 38 0.000 $0
February 1996 0 0 $0 $0 SO $0 $O 0.000 $0
14arch 1996 15 4,352 $12,835 SO $0 SO SI2,35 28.630 $14,445
April 1996 32 5.240 $20,544 $54 $0 $0 $20,598 38.160 $30,163
May 1996 0 0 $O $0 SIt ' $O ' $11 0.000 50
June 1996 10 3,153 $6,410 $3,255 SO $0 $9,666 29.760 $8,424
July 1996 0 0 $0 $2,674 $2,674 $0 •. 4348 0.000 $0
August 1996 0 0 $7,634 $0 $854 $0 $8,489 0.000 SO
September 1996 . . ...
October 1996
November 1996 '' . - ..
December 1996
TWO-YEAR ACTUAL TOTAL 62 15,110 S52,424 $6,943 $3,642 $O $63,009 40.480 S58,782
TWO-YEAR JOBS IN PROGRESS 0 0 $0 $O $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
TOTAL TWO-YEAR PROJECTION 62 15,110 $52,424 S6,943 $3,642 $5,000 $68,009 43.699
TWO-YEAR TARGET/BUDGET 20 3,000 $15,000 $2000 $571 55000 $22,571 73.040
DIFFERENCE OVER (UNDER) TARGET/BUDGET 42 12,110 $37,424 $4,943 $3,071 $0 $45,438
IMPLEMENTATION $ PER THOUSAND THERMS 545949 1995 COMPARISON AVOIDED COST 74.200
.
[]
M Updike 10/16/96
GAS - LIMITED INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WASHINGTON
Savings Direct Meas. & Total Additional
Jobs Achieved Program ImpI. General Eva]. Utility Customer
Date Comp. (Therms) Costs Costs Costs costs Costs Costs anuaty 1995 . . . .. . 5 2,365 $0 SO $0 SO SO $5,749 February 1995 0 0 $42,000 $27 $0 $O $42,027 $0 March 1995 Q. 0 0 SO SO $3 $0 " $3 $0 April 1995 ' 0 0 SO $137 SO $0 $137 so May, 1995 FMI, 0 0 $0 $16 $16 June 1995 0 0 SO $0 $4 $0 $4 $o July 1995 ' "'" 0 0 $650 $O $0 So "" 5O r '' ''
" $0 August 1995 0 0 $16,071 $0 SO $0 $16,071 $0 September I "S~Iprm:w 7r 0 0 $0 SO SO SO $0 So )ctoher 1. 995 0 0 ($53.721) $0 $0 $0 ($53,721) $0 November 1995 0 0 $0 $O SO 5 December 1995 0 0 $0 $248 $0 SO $248 $0 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 5 2,365 55.000 $428 $23 SO $5,451 $5,749
January 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $8 So :
February 1996 0 0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 March 1996 15 4,352 $12,835 $0 $0 SO $12,835 $f4 44 April 1 996 32 5.240 $20,544 $54 $0 $0 $20,598
......
$30,163 '.''
i1ay 1996 0 0 $O $0 $11 $0 $11
.
$0 June 1996 10 3.153 $6,410 $973 $0 SO $7,384 $8,424 uly 1996 0 0 $O $1,172 $1,172 $0 $2,344 $0 August 1996 0 0 $7,634 $0 $359 $O $7,994 $O September 16 SO $0 SO SO October 1996 50 50 $0 $0 Jovember 1996 50 SO $0... $0
December 1996 $0 $0 SO $0 ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 57 12.745 $47,424 $2,200 $1,551 SO $51,174 553,033
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 62 15.110 $52,424 $2,628 $1,574 $0 $56,625 $58,782
.
M Updike 10/16/96
GAS - LIMITED INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY, IDAHO
Date
Jobs
Comp.
Savings
Achieved
Therms)
Direct
Program
Costs
Impi.
Costs
General
Costs
Meas. &
Evil.
Costs
Total
Utility
Costs
Additional
Customer
Costs anualy 1995 ......................: 0 o so $0 SO . $0 February 1995 . 0 0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO March 1995 0 0 $2005 SO SO " SO j' $2M05 April 1995 (I 0 50 $79 $0 SO $79 $0 --i may 100?4. 0 0 50 $32 $15 $0 ' $4
_________
" June 1995 . 0 0 $650 $421 $10 $0 $1,081 SO NNIMPM Wy 1995 - qilpgg 0 0 50 $0 $46
August 1995 0 0 $2.230 $0 $0 $0 $2,230 $0 leptember I9 0 0 50 SO $0 $0 " $0 'r'
October 1995 0 0 ($4.885) SO SO $O ($4,885) $O NovemberI99 'r' 0 0 50 50 50 ' $0 •• $0 .............. December 1995 0 0 $0 50 50 50 $0 50 ANNUAL 1995 TOTAL 0 0 $0 $531 $70 $0 $602 $0
January 1996 ..' 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' February 1996 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $O 996 . "". .'" March 1
996
0 0 SO $0 $0 April 1"6 0 0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 SO .-q'pr.r.r.'-'-- 0 o so $o June 1996 . 0 0 SO $2,282 SO $0 $2,282 50 July 1996 '''" 0 0 $0 $1,502 $1,502 So
August 1996 0 0 50 50 $495 50 5495 50 September 1906 $0 $0 SO
SO...
..
October 1996 50 50 50 50
lovember 1996 ...- .,-.. $0 $0 $0 ' $0
December 1996 $0 SO SO $O
ANNUAL 1996 TOTAL 0 0 $0 $3,784 $1,997 SO $5,781 $0
TWO-YEAR GRAND TOTAL 0 0 50 $4,315 $2,068 $0 $6,383 $0
.
.
M Updike 10/16196
.

.
Measurement and Evaluation of Site Specific Projects
1995 through 1996
Washington Water Power has established the objective of providing an internal auditing
verification service for 100% of all projects and to subject at least 50% of all funded
energy savings to an indepth customized review of energy savings.
The intention of the M&E effort is to not only satisify the regulatory requirement of
ensuring that DSM funds are prudently invested in energy efficiency resources, but also
to provide feedback concerning the viability of funded technologies under actual
operating conditions, collect and analyze customer satisfaction with our programs and to
identify problems that occurred during the implementation of the project that could lead
to more fully realizing the anticipated energy efficiency of the project or even to exceed
projected savings.
It is the intention of our M&E program to be more than simply data collection and
analysis, but to also enhance WWP's knowledge of customer energy operations, to
improve customer satisfaction and to actually increase, not just measure, the energy
savings of a project.
To accomplish these objectives WWP has implemented a customized approach to site-
specific projects This approach involves a collaboration between the M&E analyst, the
WV/P Project Lead and the customer.
When a project becomes 'imminent' (likely to be funded), the WWP Project Lead notifies
the M&E Analyst of the project All projects are reviewed by the M&E Analyst and are
evaluated for their potential contribution to achieving our established M&E objectives
If, in the opinion of the M&E Analyst or the WWP Project Lead, the project can
materially contribute toward our understanding of energy efficient technologies or
customer operations, or if we believe that an M&E effort can increase the realized energy
savings from a project, then that project is selected for an M&E Plan.
The M&E Plan outlines a custom approach to measuring the energy savings from a
project Frequently specific types of savings are targetted for in-depth analysis on the
basis of the customers interest in obtaining such information, WWP staff interest in
detailed technical data or a societal interest in increasing the realized energy savings.
The M&E Plan may call for pre-metering, post-metering, measurement of product output,
end-use equipment runtimes, persistance surveys, post-project customer surveys, billing
data analysis or any other means necessary to measure and enhance the energy savings, to
meet the customers expectations and to provide WWP staff with feedback concerning
technologies and program operations The Plan is signed by both the M&E Analyst and
the WWP Project Lead as a committment to complete the Plan requirements.
In order to achieve a consistent level of detail and quality in the measurement of energy
usage a series of protocols were developed as guidance in these tasks. These protocols
specifically cover lighting, HVAC, process and motor M&E tasks. The protocols are
modified as necessary to meet the project requirements. A copy of these protocols is
attached.
Given that the Plan is often developed before the project completion, and frequently even
before the DSM contract is signed, and considering that it is often necessary to wait
. I
through a post-project equipment break-in period and then an additional calendar year to
obtain the necessary data, these Plans are often not complete for over two years after their
initiation. For this reason, WNW is working to develop an M&E Plan calendar for these
projects and to integrate the M&E process into the existing DSM project tracking
database
Since WWP's M&E effort materially effects the likelihood of implementation staff
reaching pre-specified DSM goals, and since it also performs an internal auditing
function, the M&E Analyst is organizationally separated from the implementation staff.
In fact, at present, it is not until you reach the officer level that the M&E Analyst and
implementation staff share a common leader.
. S
C/I SITE-SPECIFIC DSM
MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION PLAN
This document outlines the procedures for conducting the measurement and evaluation
process for the WWP Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific DSII program. While the
program relies heavily upon a customized approach to each site-specific project, there
are several elements of the process and protocols that are expected to be consistant
across the projects.
The objective of the impact evaluation process is to (1) obtain a cost-effective
verification of the energy savings of C/I DSM site-specific projects, (2) to provide the
customer with Information concerning the energy savings obtained from the energy-
efficiency Improvements, (3) to provide WWP with a means to determine if the
Installed equipment is operating correctly and to Improve the performance where
possible and (4) to provide Information concerning equipment, processes and
engineering assumptions for future energy-efficiency projects in order to reduce costs
and/or increase performance.
The ME process is initiated by the project lead (PL) when the project becomes
imminent Imminent projects are ones that are highly likely to be incentivized by
WWP. It is desirable to identify these projects as early In the project cycle as possible
in order to maximize the opportunities for pre-metering. All projects must be
identified and have an ME Plan written prior to the signing of the DSM contract unless
the project lead and ME analyst agree to an exception. Finalizing the ME Plan prior
to the signing of the DSM contract allows WWP to make specific arrangements for any
required post-metering access or other ME activities as part of the DSM contract,
where necessary.
Once the project lead has identified the project as imminent, the ME analyst will draft
an initial ME plan for that specific project. The plan will be reviewed, modified as
necessary and signed by both the ME analyst and the project lead. Signing the plan
Indicates a commitment to make a best efforts attempt to complete the measurement
approach specified in the plan.
The ME Plan will contain specific tasks to be completed and the Individuals responsible
for those tasks. The time that these tasks are to be carried out may range from
Immediately upon the completion of the ME Plan to perhaps a delay of a year or more in
the event of post-metering and post-project billing analysis Generally the ME Plan
will rely on pre and post-metering, billing analysis, regression analysis and
engineering analysis of the project. All of these, with the exception of submetering, will
typically be the responsibility of the ME analyst The responsibility for seeing that
the submetering is completed will be the responsibility of the project lead. The
individual responsible for ensuring the completion of these tasks will not necessarily be
the Individual completing the tasks, they will draw on other resources as necessary.
Following the completion of all elements of the fl&E Plan, an ME Final Report will be
based upon the results of the measurement. The draft of this report will be written by
the ME analyst. The draft will be reviewed and modified as necessary until the project
lead and the ME analyst sign off on a final plan
n
.
The M&E Final Report will contain the final estimate of the energy savings from the
project and the details of the estimates. To the extent possible, the M&E Final Report
will also Identify any deficiencies that have led to reduced energy savings. The Report
will also indicate any other energy saving opportunities that are noted during the M&E
process.
If the deficiencies and energy savings opportunities Indicated in the Report are
capitalized on, these energy savings will be added to those estimated in the Report. Non-
energy benefits will be noted In the Report to the extent possible.
Any deviation from the attached M&E protocols must be approved by both the project
lead and the M&E analyst. The deviation must be noted in both the M&E Plan and the M&E
Final Report along with an explanation of the reason that the deviation was necessary.
During the entire M&E process, all parties Involved are encouraged to seek out
opportunities to bring the customer additional value. These opportunities may be in
providing the customer with energy use or operational information about their
facilities, Identifying areas where additional energy savings can be achieved, putting the
customer in contact with industry experts that can assist them with operational issues
and so on.
Every effort will be made to obtain and catalog energy-use and engineering data from
each project in a way that will reduce the costs of subsequent projects of that type
and/or increase the accuracy of the engineering estimates on future projects. The M&E
analyst will assume responsibility for reviewing the data resulting from the M&E effort
and providing the implementation staff with summaries. There will be particular
attention paid to areas where M&E data can be extrapolated to future projects in order to
Improve the quality and/or reduce the costs of the engineering for those projects.
Modifications will be made to the M&E process and protocols as necessary based upon the
experience acquired by the Implementation and M&E staff.
0
. .
WASHINGTON WATER POWER
C/I SITE-SPECIFIC DSM
MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION PROTOCOLS
Lighting
L 1. Determination of Baseline Connected Load
a)The existing baseline kW for affected lighting measures will be determined
after an audit of the customer's facility. The audit will Include the type and
number of fixtures, the type and number of ballasts (based upon a
sampling) and the type and number of lamps (based upon a sampling
complying with Item Ii below).

1) The audit may be performed by an Independent consulting
engineering firm, WWP personnel, or a representative of the
customer's facility. When the audit Is submitted by a
representative of the customer's facility the audit will be subject to
pre-verification by WWP personnel.
ii) The minimum sampling for all ballasts and lamps will be.0570 of
each fixture type or a two (2) separate fixtures, whichever Is
greater.
b)In the case of new construction the existing baseline kW will be determined
by the Washington State Energy Code - 1994 First Edition.
L2. Determination of Proposed Load
a) The proposed baseline kW for affected lighting measures will be determined
after the completion of a Lighting Engineering Study (LES) on the
customer's facility.

1) The LES may be performed by an Independent consulting engineering
firm, WWP personnel, or a representative of the customer's
facility. This will be determined solely by WWP personnel. When
the LES is submitted it will be subject to review and approval by
WWP personnel.
L3. Measurement of Hours of Operation
a)The measurement of hours of lighting operation will be determined through
time-of-use (TOU) measurement devices.

1) Placement of the TOU measurement devices will be determined by an
Independent consulting engineering firm or WWP personnel. The
minimum level of sampling will be one TOU measurement device In
each of the applicable following areas: Cafeterias/dining areas,
kitchens, Corridors/hallways, mechanical rooms, storage, Utility
rooms, offices, reception areas, public restrooms, other rooms or
areas of unique or atypical usage patterns.
b)IOU's will be Installed for a period of time, not less than two weeks, to be
specified by WWP personnel.
C) 100 of sites will be pre-metered to verify hours of operation.
d) Sites which change the control scheme of the lighting system and/or
building during a project will be post-metered to determine post-
Implementation hours of operation.
L4. Measurement of Light Level
a) Light level readings will be taken by WWP personnel. Light level readings
will be taken at the working plane or 30 Inches above the floor and
performed under the following conditions:
S .
1) Readings will be taken in the same location as the ballast and lamp
sampling takes place.
11) Readings will be taken away from all sources of daylighting and
reflecting surfaces. If this is not possible, readings will be taken at
night.
MOTORS
MI. Operating Conditions
a) Motors must be properly selected according to known service conditions.
Usual service conditions, defined In NEMA Standards Publication MGI-
1987, Motors and Generators, Include:
1) Exposure to an ambient temperature between 0 degrees Celsius and
40 degrees Celsius
ii) Installation In areas or enclosures that do not seriously Interfere
with the ventilation of the machine
III) Operation within a tolerance of '1-10% of rated voltage
iv)Operating from a sine wave voltage source (not to exceed 10%
deviation factor)
v)Operation within a tolerance of '/-5% of rated frequency
vi)Operation with a voltage unbalance of 1% or less
b) To preserve efficiency gains motors must be replaced with motors of like
speed (RPM).
M2, Determination of Load Factor
a) The load factor is the average percentage of full-rated output for the motor.
To calculate the load factor:
1) On single phase systems: Measure the actual power draw of the
motor with a watt meter. Record the nameplate horsepower and
power factor of the motor and use the following equations:
Measured(W) ActualPower(W)
(1)or
V * I * 746 = ActualPower
(2)0.746 * hp * pf a RatedPower(W)
(3)(ActualPower / RatedPower) LoadFactor
Where:
V=volts
I Amps
pf = Power factor
hp Horsepower
S .
11) On three-phase systems
a) Measure the actual power draw of the motor with a watt
meter. Record the nameplate horsepower and power factor of
the motor and use the following equations:
Measured(W) a ActualPower (W)
1)V * I pf * 1.732 a ActualPower(W)
2)hp 746 RatedPower(W)
3)ActualPower / RatedPower LoadFactor
Where
V'Volts
I Amps
pf Power factor
hp horsepower
b) The load factor will be measured before and after installation.
1) Measurement will be conducted under like operating conditions
ii) If the load factor varies by more than /- 10 from before to after
the savings must be adjusted with the lower of the two values
M3. Measurement of Hours of Operation
a) The measurement of hours of operation will be determined through time-
of-use (TOU) measurement devices.
i)TOU measurement devices will be placed on each motor.
ii)TOUs will be Installed for a period of time, not less than two weeks,
to be specified by WWP personnel.
ill) 100 of sites will be pre-metered to verify hours of operation.
iv) Sites which change the control scheme of the motor and/or building
during a project will be post-metered to determine post-
implementation hours of operation.
M4. Savings calculations
a) The below equations apply only to motors operating at a specified constant
load For varying loads, you may apply the energy savings calculation to
each load cycle where the load is constant for a reasonable period of time
Calculations are not available for pulsating loads or loads that cycle at rapid
intervals.
(1)kW saved hp * LF * 0.746 * ((100 / Estd)-( 100 / Erie))
where:
rip a motor nameplate horsepower
LF Load Factor
Estd = Standard motor efficiency
Erie = High efficiency motor efficiency
(2)kWh saved = kW saved * Annual Hours of Operation
S
El
HVAC / PROCESS
Potential DSM Applications
a)HVAC Applications include but are not limited to chiller/boller/hydronic,
heat recovery, ducted central heating, electric resistance heating, heat
pump, radiant heating, energy management system
b)Process applications include but are not limited to heat forming, heat
treatment, other non-H VAC, lighting or motors related processing
Determination of baseline connected load HVAC/process
a)Existing baseline kW/therm load for affected measures will be determined
after an audit of the customers facility The audit will Include type,
quantity, and kW/BTU rated capacity of each piece of equipment considered
under the proposed Energy Conservation Measure (ECM).
1) Audits may be performed by an independent consulting engineering
firm, WWP personnel, or a representative of the customers
facility. Audits not performed by WWP personnel shall be subject
to pre-verificat ion by WWP. The audit approach used is solely at
the discretion of WWP.
b)A simple billing analysis shall be conducted on each project to confirm if
existing baseline loads are reasonable when compared to historical usage.
C) Baseline kW/therm loads shall be determined according to applicable state
and local code requirements. When no state code exists, industry standard
practice will serve as the baseline.
Determination of proposed load.
a) The proposed kW/therm load will be determined through an independent
engineering audit by WWP personnel or a representative of the customers
facility. Audits not performed by WWP personnel shall be subject to pre-
verification by WWP. The audit approach used is solely at the discretion of
WWp.
Measurement of existing and new (proposed) loads
a)Weather sensitive and non-weather sensitive loads shall be measured with
reasonable prudence given to their seasonal impact on monthly and annual
energy requirements.
b)Measuring and metering (M&P1) requirements with respect to establishing
proper points/timing for M&r-1 flow rates, pressures, energy loads,
capacity, temperatures, operating hours etc. shall be determined by the
M&E analyst and the Project Lead on a case-by-case basis depending on the
specific characteristics of the system or process addressed
C) Duration for on-site metering/monitoring activity shall be a minimum of
two weeks for each of the two project phases, pre-installation and post-
installation, unless otherwise approved by the M&E analyst and Project
Lead.
d) Consideration shall be given to each project as to whether or not it is
appropriate to continue post-Installation monitoring of specific ECM
applications for the life of the benefits claimed, some other term agreed to
by the M&E analyst and project lead, or not at all.
Hi
H2.
H3
H4
S .
GENERAL CONDITIONS
G1. Exceptions to these guidelines will be allowed under the following conditions
a)The ME analyst and the Project Lead agree to alternative methods of
measurement for the above Items.
b)The ME analyst documents the exceptions and provides written reasoning
for them
G2 These Protocols maybe modified as necessary based upon experience gained from
working with this process.
. .
What We've Learned
The M&E process, as specified above, has worked well in achieving the stated goals
given the resources available for implementation. The main impediment in achieving the
hoped for outcome of the plan has been the relative priorization of completing and
following through on the M&E Plan by WWP Project Leads.
It was concluded very early on that serving our DSM customers and meeting customer
and trade ally expectations was of a higher priority than satisfying the requirements of the
M&E process The anticipation was that M&E tasks would 'valley fill' those periods in
the WWP Project Leads time when there were no more pressing customer or project
related duties to fulfill.
Experience has shown that there are no 'valleys' to fill in the WWP Project Leads week.
When M&E tasks were useful in fulfilling higher priority objectives the tasks were
enthusiastically pursued by implementation staff. This occurs when customers are
dissatisfied with their perceived level of savings (triggering a post-audit, billing analysis
and submetering), when pre-metering was necessary to develop accurate estimates of
end-use runtimes to determine the cost-effectiveness of efficiency measure and so on.
Verification of project completion and incentive payments have always been religiously
followed as part of our internal auditing process These experiences have led to a number
of DSM / M&E success stories that have strenthened our resolve to more fully pursue the
M&E process.
The primary M&E difficulty arises when implementation staff is forced to decide
between pressing tasks required for existing projects and customers vs meeting M&E
needs that do not have any direct foreseeable customer benefit.
WWP recognizes the value of ME in procuring demand-side resources. The
commitment to measuring and enhancing resource acquisition and improving WWP's
DSM programs through M&E has not changed Consequently, we are discussing
developing dedicated implementation staff individuals to ensure that the necessary tasks
are performed Furthermore, future implementation staff goals are expected to
incorporate M&E 'triggers' involving completing and following through on M&E Plans
for a specified percent of all energy savings.
From an M&E perspective, it is fortunate that many of the projects being incentivized
under this program do require a considerable period of time to complete This timing,
together with the fairly rigorous engineering required to meet project energy savings
estimate needs, mean that few M&E opportunities have been lost. A modicum of fine
tuning to ensure that the resources are available to complete M&E tasks should be all that
is needed to implement a DSM M&E program that not only measures but also enhances
project energy savings.
TO: Dave Heyamoto / Bonnie Shepherd / Bill Johnson
FROM: Ann Carey
DATE: April 18, 1996
Here Is the REVISED summary of the 1995 New Construction/Conversion Survey. Only those customers who added either both electric
and gas service or just gas service in 1995 are included in these results. Percentages from the survey have been applied to the number of
new residential gas installs for 1995. The survey has three different error margins; all gas installs ±4.40%, new construction customers
46.51%, and for conversion customers ±6.16%. Based on the error margins, a midpoint and a range have been provided for each category.
(1994 error margins: new gas Installs ±4.80%, new construction ±5.33%, conversion customers +6.28%.)
1995 New Construction/Conversion Survey
1995 1994
New Residential Gas Installd 7,634 10,684
Percent T Range Midpoint Percent Range Midpoint
New Construction Installs 47% 3,430- 3,746 3,588 44% 1 4,475-4,927 4,701
Conversion Installs 53% j 3,868- 4,224 4,046 56% 5,696-6,270 5,983
1994
ConversionFrom: Percent Range Midpoint Percent Range Midpoint
Electricity 57% 2,164 -2,448 2,306 57% 3,196-3,624 3,410
WWP Conversions 75% 1_623-1_837 1,730 82% 2,620- 2,976 2,796
Competitive Conversions 25% 519-587 577 16% 512-580 546
Oil 15% 570-644 607 23% 1,290-1,462 1,376
Wood 15% 570-644 607 10% 560-636 598
Pellets 7% 266-300 283 7% 393-445 419
Propane 5% 190-214 202 3% 168-190 179
n
Marlat Research 4119196
Page 1
$55,000 - $59,999 5%
$60,000- $64,999 3%
$65,000 and Over 7%
Don't Know/Refused 31%
rcent Range Midpoint Annual Income Percent
5% 570-644 607 Under $5,000 1%
5% 570-644 607 $5,000 - $9,999 4%
7% 266-300 283 $10,000- $14,999 7%
5% 190-214 202 $15,000-$19,999 6%
3% 114-128 121 $20,000-$24,999 8%
4% 152-172 162 525J)00 -$29,999 5%
2% 76-86 81 530,000-$34,999 7%
2% 76-P. Ri tIS 12%
I Pellets
ne
Electric
iiai Electric
1995 NEW CONSTRUCTION
Space/Water Heat Percent Range Midpoint Serving Utility Percent Range Midpoint Annual Income Percent
Furnace 93% 3,120- 3,554 3,337 l3onners Ferry 9% 302-344 323 Under $5,000 0%
Water Heater 88% 2,951 - 3,363 3,157 Inland Power & Light 9% 302 -344 323 $5,000-$9,999 1%
- - -- Kootenai Elec. co-op 4% - 135-153 144 10,000- $14,999 2%
Appliance. Percent Range Midpoint
Fireplace/Log 25% 839-955 897
Stove/Range 30% 1,006- 1,146 1,076
Dryer 14% 469-535 502
Cooktop 4% 135-153 144
HBQ 2% 68.78 72
Spa 1% 34.38 36
Other 1% 34-38 36
None 10% 336-382 359
Total 1995 New Construction 1 2,583 - 2,943 Gas Appliance Inslafls* 2,763
Space/Water Heat Percent Range Midpo
mace 69% 2,620- 2,964 2,79
eestanding Gas Stove 14% 531 -601 566
replace/Fireplace Inse 7% 266-300 283
all Heater 3% 114-128 121
diant Stove 2% 76.86 81
2or4tfg.r 444L I 17fl.1RQfl 1 17V
Appllances Percent Range Midpoint
Fireplace/Log 17% _646-730 688
Stove/Range 17% 646-730 688
Dryer 3% 114-128 121
Cooktop 1% 38-42 40
l3l3Q 0% --
Spa 0% -- --
Other 0% - -.
None 9% 342-386 364
Total 1995 Conversion
Ga. Appliance Installs" 1,442 - 1,632 1,337
Lincoln County Co-op 4% 135 -153 144 15,000- $19,999 2%
Northern Lights 9% 302-344 323 20,000- $24,999 4%
AflAfl £W 11QA IAOA 1111 CmIn

.D1-777 *

$30,000-$34,999 7%

$35,000- $39,999 13
[Total 1995 New Construction and
tCover*lon Gas Appliance lnstall" 4,025.4,575 4,300
Notes:
'Percent* reflect the number of appliances Installed at the time the go was connected.
Additional apphancea may have been Installed following the gas connection.
Total, do not include space or water heat equipment Market Research 4119196
'ag. 2
COMPARISON OF 1995 TO 1994 GAS APPLIANCE INSTALLS
Appliances' Percent Range Midpoint
Fireplace/Log 25% 839-955 897
Stove/Range 30% 1,006-1,146 1,076
Dryer 14% 469-535 502
___ 4% 135-153 144
BI3Q 2% 68-78 72
Spa 1% 34-38 36
Other 1% 34-38 36
None 10% 336-382 359
Appliances' Percent Range Midpoint
Fireplace/ Log 39% 1,735 - 1,931 1,833
Stove/Range 22% 979-1,089 1,034
Dryer 16% 712-792 752
Cooktop 14% 623-693 658
BI3Q 2% 89-99 94
Spa 1% 44-50 47
Other 0% -- -
None 5% 222-248 235
.
(Total 95 Appliances" 1 2,583- 2,943 1 2,763 otal '94 Appliances" 1 4,183-4,655 I 4—,-41-9---1
1995 Sc 1994 New Construction Gas Appliance Installs" 6,766- 7,598
ITotal 95 Appliances" I 1,442-1,632 1,537 I ITotal '94 Appliances" I 1,682- 1,908 I 1,795 I
1995 & 1994 Conversion Gas Appliance Installs 1 3124- 3,540 I 3,332
I Total 1995 & 1994 New Construction and Conv ersion Gas Appliance Installs 1 9,890.11,138 1 10,51 4j Ma Ra5I.rch 4/19/96 rket
Page 3
Appliances' Percent Range Midpoint
flreplace/lg 18% 646-730 688
Stove/Range 15% 646-730 688
Dryer 4% 114-128 121
Cooktop 1% 38-42 40
BI3Q 0% - --
Spa 0% --
Other 0% 0% --
None 9% 342-386 364
Appliances' Percent Range Midpoint
Fireplace/Log 10% 560-636 598
Stove/Range 10% 560-636 598
Dryer 4% 224-254 239
Cooktop 4% 224-254 239
BBQ 0% - -
Spa 0% - -
Other -- 2% 112-128 120
None 8% 449-509 479
fl
TO: Dave Heyamoto / Bonnie Shepherd / Bill Johnson
PROM: Ann Carey
DATE: April 18, 1996
Here Is the REVISED summary of the 1995 New Construction/Conversion Survey. Only those customers who added either both electric
and gas service or just gas service in 1995 are included in these results. Percentages from the survey have been applied to the number of
new residential gas installs for 1995. The survey has three different error margins; all gas installs ±4.40%, new construction customers
+6.51%, and for conversion customers 0.16%. Based on the error margins, a midpoint and a range have been provided for each category.
(1994 error margins: new gas installs ±4.80%, new construction ±5.33%, conversion customers ±6.28%.)
1995 New ConstnictionlConversion Survey
New Residential Gas Install 7,634 10,684
Percent Range Midpoint Percent Range Midpoint
New Construction Installs 47% 3,430- 3,746 3,588 44%-14,475-4, 927 4,701
Conversion Installs 53% 3,868- 4,224 4,046 56% 5,6% - 6,270 5,983
1995 . •. .1994. :......
Conversion From Percent Range Midpoint Percent Range - Midpoint
Electricity 57% 2,164 - 2,448 2,306 57% 3,196.3,624 3,410
WWP Conversions 75% 1,623 - 1,837 1,730 82% 2,620- 2,976 2,796
Competitive Conversions 25% 519-587 577 16% 512-580 546
Oil 15% 570-644 607 23% 1,290-1,462 1,376
Wood 15% 570.644 607 10% 560-636 598
Pellets 7% 266-300 283 7% 393-445 419
Propane 1 5% 190-214 202 1 3% 168-190 179
0
Market Research 4/19/96
Pss1
0
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF )
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY )
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND )
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION )
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR )
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND )
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS )
ATTACHMENT E
COST-EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
1997-1999 DSM Program Budget
1997 1998 1999 17-19
WWP Electric Programs Units
mWh
Savings
Utility
Cost
$k Units
BMW
Savings
Utility
Cost
$k Units
amW
Savings
MY
Cost
$k Units
amW
Savings
Utility
Cost
MAP
LI EnqrEmcIency
HVACstntmcIency
Trade Ally EducatIon
Natural Gas Awareness
RMPP
PreecdptiveUghtlng
Preec Fuel SwItching
Trade Ally
C/I Site SpecIfic
Energy 2000
Trade Ally Tool LendIng
RegIonèl Programs
965 02280 $2,272 0 0.0000 $0 0 0.0000 $0 965 0.2280 $2.272
275 0.2315 $584 275 0.2315 $590 215 02315 $592 825 06945 $1,767
160 00731 $111 160 00731 $114 160 00731 $117 480 02192 *342
0 0.0000 $56 0 $58 0 $59 0
3 4.7945
3
1 1.5982 $0 1 1.5982 $0 1 1.5982 $0
0 02854 $141 0 02854 $149 0 02854 $157 0 08562 $447
140 0.1142 $131 140 0.1144 $135 140 0.1146 $138 420 0.3432 $404
115 02275 $130 115 02275 $134 115 02275 $137 345 06826 $401
50 0.4338 $169 50 0.4338 $199 50 0.4338 $208 150 1.3014 $596
180 1.0357 $940 180 11905 $1,060 180 11905 $1,077 540 34167 $3,076
0 00000 $366 0 00571 $366 0 0.2854 $262 0 0.3425 $993
1 0 00000 $36 0 $36 0 $38 0 $110
1 0.5500 $669 1 0.5500 $1 ,21511 1 0.5500$1,22411 3 1.6500 *3,108
TOut VYW? ttectnc 1,557 4.71 55,5Z4 IZZ 4.75 54,055 52Z 4.15 54,001 ajal 14.5 111,501
pj
AMTW
WWP 1997-1999 DSM Attachment E Page 1 RevIsed 10/14/90
.
Cost-Effectiveness Methodology Narrative
Cost-effectiveness tests were defined in the 1993 WWP Mid-course Adjustment filing. This proposal does
not propose to make any changes to the substance of that filing. For the sake of completeness and clarity
the calculation and interpretation of these tests previously agreed to are reiterated below.
Cost-Effectiveness Tests and their Interpretation
The objective of cost-effectiveness tests are to provide a basis for comparison between disparate resources.
This comparison may involve supply-side vs demand-side resource options or could be a comparison of
two alternative, and perhaps mutually exclusive, demand-side options.
The cost-effectiveness tests most frequently employed, including within this filing are the total resource
cost (TRC) test and the utility cost test (UCT).
The Total Resource Cost Test
The total resource cost test is generally considered to be a societal test. The test is a comparison of
societal costs to societal benefits, regardless of who these costs or benefits accrue to A favorable 'lRC
test, one where the societal benefits exceed the costs, does not necessarily indicate that all parties to the
transaction are individually benefited by the transaction.
Specifically excluded from consideration in the TRC test are any 'transfer' payments. A transfer payment
is one where a resource is exchanged between two parties without a net societal effect For example, a
utility incentive for a specific energy efficiency project would be regarded as a transfer payment, and
excluded from any ThC calculation, because it is simply a transfer of cash resources from the utility to the
customer with no net societal impact On the other hand, the cost of installation of equipment or the
salvage value of removed equipment are both societal costs and would be included in the TRC calculation
because they reflect societal costs and are not merely a transfer from one party to another.
Not all societal costs and benefits of energy efficiency projects are easily quantifiable. Projects frequently
impact indoor air quality, productivity, comfort, asset value either beneficially or adversely. The general
approach has been to exclude these difficult to quantify societal benefits but there has been a persistent
acknowledgment of the inadequacies of cost-benefit analyses that do not consider the often significant
benefits that are difficult to quantify.
In prior regulatory proceedings, Puget Power developed four alternatives to viewing TRC as a energy-
efficiency program tool. These four alternatives are:
Category 1
Measures are deemed cost-effective as long as the sum of all monetary payments, by all parties,
are less than the net avoided cost of the project energy savings Thus, utilities may conceivably
fund up to the entire net avoided cost (avoided costs less program administrative costs) before the
project becomes cost-ineffective.
Category 2
Category 2 cost-effectiveness adds quantifiable non-energy benefits to those measured in category
1 above Thus, a project that is cost-ineffective under category 1 considerations may be cost-
effective under the category 2 approach if the quantifiable non-energy benefits are large enough.
.
[II
Category 3
Since not all non-energy benefits can be easily quantified, it is possible that a project which is
societally cost-effective may fail both the category I and category 2 tests because a portion of the
project benefits are unquantifiable.
In order to accomplish this, category 3 TRC tests reduce the cost of the project by the amount that
the customer is willing to pay to obtain the resource savings This is generally considered to be
about two years worth of the customers bills savings resulting from the project (based upon an
assumed two-year simple payback investment criteria on the part of the customer) The
remaining costs must be justified based upon the value of the resource to the utility.
Category 4
Projects which fail categories 1,2 and 3 may still be desirable for other reasons. Among these
reasons are projects which are legislatively mandated, are oriented towards market-
transformation, provide valuable feedback in the form of market acceptance or provide utility
staff with experience in developing similar programs, support other state, regional or national
policy objectives or are cost-ineffective merely because of unique costs that are not likely to be
replicated in a repetition of the program (i.e. start-up costs).
These four alternatives to the interpretation of the TRC has broadened the meaning of the strict
interpretation of the TRC test beyond the merely quantifiable societal impacts to include a recognition of
the analytical limitations of quantifying some of these impacts.
The Utility Cost Test (UCI)
The UCT answers the question of what impact does a particular program have upon total utility
expenditures Programs which impose a net increase in utility expenditures are regarded as cost
ineffective under this test, programs reducing net utility expenditures are cost-effective.
The UCT does not consider the participant or societal economics. Transfer payments are included in the
UCT if they impact utility costs (i.e. incentive payments made by utilities would be considered as a utility
cost). Also included are program administration costs, engineering costs borne by the utility and similar
costs.
The basic benefit that the utility costs are measured against is the avoided cost of energy that the utility is
not required to purchase to serve an end-use as a result of the energy-efficiency project. This cost could be
restricted to the avoided cost of the resource only, or may include avoided transmission or distribution
capacity as well, depending on the nature of the utility resource needs.
These two tests provide a significant insight into the value a particular programs and how they compare to
alternative supply and demand-side resources While they are not necessarily the sole decision making
tool that can be employed in making resource decisions, they are tools of considerable worth
.
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT F
TARIFF RIDER REGULATORY GUIDELINES
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
Derivation of DSM Rate Adjustment by Schedule. Electric
Based on 1995 Restated Revenues
(000s $)
Grossed-up
Actual 1995 95 Weather Remove: Remove: DSM Restated DSM Annual DSM for Rev, related Divide by: 96 Proposed
Schedule Revenue(1) Normalization Idaho PCA(2) Sch. 91 Rev. Revenues % Increase Rev. Require. Exp. (3) Est. Kwhs(4) DSM Rate/kwh
Washington I $98,669 $2,698 $1522 $99,845 1.4711% $1,469 $1,536 2,114,146 $000073
11&12 $24,050 $267 $366 $23,951 1.4711% $352 $368 348.172 $0.00106
21&22 $68.975 $15 $1,043 $67,947 1.4711% $1,000 $1,045 1,417.645 $0.00074
25826 $23,458 $236 $23,222 1.4711% $342 $357 715,066 $0.00050
30.31832
41-48
$4,092
$3.408
$58 $4,034 1.4711%
$53 $3,355 1.4711%
$59
$49
$62
$52
108,629 $0.00057
(5)
Total $222,652 $2,980 $2,931 $222,354 $3,271 $3,421
Idaho 1 $41,511 $1,130 $1,255 $595 $40,791 1.4711% $600 $613 883,794 $000068
11812 $13,203 $166 $418 $194 $12,757 1.4711% $188 $192 182,234 $0.00103
21822 $28,050 $3 $854 $385 $26,814 1.4711% $394 $403 546,464 $0.00072
25826 $9,398 $303 $141 $8,954 1.4711% $132 $135 314.788 $0.00042
31832 $1,895 $66 $27 $1,802 1.4711% $27 $27 41,873 $0.00063
41-49 $1,456 $48 $19 $1,389 1.4711% $20 $21 (5)
Total $95,513 $1,299 $2,944 $1,175 $92,506 $1,361 $1,391
Annual System DSM Revenue Requirement $4,632 $4,632 $4,811
Divide by: System Restated Electric Revenue $314,860
%Inaease 1.4711%
(1)From Company Revenue Run Reports.
(2)Surcharges in effect 1/1/95-12131195. From Report sent to 1PUC.
(3)Revenue-related expenses for WA: 4.5675%; ID: 2.1773%
(4)95 Company forecast 0196 sales.
(5)Street and area light rates will be increased by 1.55% In WA & 1.51% In ID.
BJH
10/17/96
S .
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
DSM Rate Change by Schedule - Electric
Proposed Rates effective January 1, 1997
Proposed Present Change in
Schedule DSM Rate/kwh DSM Rate/kwh DSM Rate/kwh Washington i $0.00073 $0.00073 $0.00000
11&12 $000106 $000103 $000003
21&22 $000074 $000075 ($000001)
25&26 $0.00050 $0.00047 $0.00003
30,31&32 $0.00057 $0.00061 ($0.00004)
Idaho i $0.00068 $0.00070 ($0.00002)
11&12 $000103 $000108 ($000005)
21&22 $000072 $000071 $000001
25&26 $0.00042 $0.00046 ($0.00004)
31 &32 $0.00063 $0.00076 ($0.00013)
S .
ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF RIDER
GUIDELINES
In combination with other guidelines contained in this application, WWP commits
to the following guidelines for implementation of the Energy Efficiency Tariff
Rider
1)WWP assumes all responsibility for under-collection of revenue
2)WWP assumes any risk due to adverse tax treatment
3)Energy efficiency expenditures are subject to prudency reviews
4)Any excess rider revenue remaining upon the termination of this
mechanism will be expended on energy efficiency or returned to customers
5)The rider mechanism is intended to cover a three year period, calendar
years 1997-1999
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT G
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLANNING
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
WWP DSM OPPORTUNITIES GROUP
Attendees and Meeting Dates
NAME/ORGANIZATION PHONE NUMBER 5/16/96 MTG. 6/25/96 MTG
Frank Maglietti [phone] YES YES
Mert Lott [phone] YES YES
Deborah Stephens [phone] YES YES
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Wayne Hart [phone] YES
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jun Lazar [phone] YES
WA Attorney General—Public Counsel
Don Andre' [phone] YES YES
Spokane NezghborhoodAct:on Program
Liz Klump [phone] YES YES
Washington State Energy Office
Jim Nybo [phone] YES
Tom Eckman [phone] YES
Northwest Power Planning Council
Mary Anne Hutton [phone] YES
Northwest Industrial Gas Users
Roger Curtis [phone] YES YES
Renee Coelho [phone] YES YES
Bruce Folsom [phone] YES YES
Steve Negretti [phone] YES
Blame French [phone] YES
Jon Powell [phone] YES
Bill Johnson [phone] YES
Washington Water Power
S 9
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT H
RESULTS CENTER REPORT
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
.

.
Washington Water Power
Distribution Charge & Market
Transformation Programs
PrDtiIe #126
Principal investigators: Barb Hogan and Ted Flanigan
Executive summary 2
Program Manager's Perspective 3
Program Context 4
Preparing for Competition 6
Program Design & Deliverij 10
Monitoring and Evaluation 15
Program savings 16
Additional Program Benefits IS
Cost of the Program 20
Lessons Learned 22
Transferability 24
References 27
Washington Water Powers Distribution Charge represents one of North Americas leading strategies for funding
energy efficiency and stands as a powerful model for the future. As such, it was selected for inclusion in the Series
4 Profiles by The Results Center Board of Advisors. The Results Center salutes Washington Water Power for its
success with the Distribution Charge and commends the utility for developing a successful portfolio of market
transformation programs. In particular, we wish to recognize Bruce Folsom and Bill Johnson of Washington Water
Power and Jim Nybo oi the Northwest Power Planning Council for their assistance in developing this Profile.
This Profile is part of a collection of Profiles researched and published by The Results Center over the past four
years. It is intended to provide a thorough understanding of the program and its unique elements. This Profile can
also be used to compare this program with other programs documented by The Results Center. For a complete
listing of the Profile Library see the Appendix. For additional information please contact The Results Center.
Copyright ©1996 by IRT Environment, Inc. All rights reserved.
.
Executive Summarg
Washington Water Power's Distribution Charge, formally
known by its regulators as 'the DSM Tariff Rider,' is the most
sophisticated model of its kind and a powerful harbinger of
what may well become the future predominant energy effi-
ciency services funding mechanism in a competitive utility en-
vironment. As similar structures have been proposed by states
across the nation, Washington Water Power (W'/VF) has not
only implemented the first "non-bypassable systems benefits
charge' but is also the first utility to provide results on the suc-
cess of the model's implementation.
Concurrent to the introduction of the Distribution Charge was
a complete overhaul of WINP's approach to energy services.
W'iVP has refined its focus on maintaining efficiency through
market transformations, developing a constructive response to
regional and national pressures. Its staff and advisors created
new efficiency program designs to maximize effects while
minimizing costs through an emphasis on becoming technical
consultants and customer-focused energy service providers.
An enabling aspect of the Distribution Charge's evolution has
been the corporate culture within WWP. Despite projected ex-
cess capacity well past the year 2000, WWP's management is
committed to efficiency as a customer service and in this re-
gard has responded to competition proactively. It developed
the prototype Distribution Charge long before many others
were aware of the concept. It was the first utility in the North-
west to propose that its largest customers gain direct access to
their choice of suppliers. The Distribution Charge provides a
pay-as-you go mechanism for continuing efficiency in a direct
access environment and in the future will make V\WVs power
prices easily comparable with competitors' rates.
The DSM Issues Group, known as 'DIG,' was formed at the
request of WWPs regulatory commission and was comprised
of WWP staff along with representatives from seven key re-
gional agencies. The utility's openness in DIG's extensive
meetings over a 30-month period have been credited with
shaping WWFs progressive energy services posture. Now its
initiative to open up its territory to retail wheeling fills out the
model as the cost of all kilowatt-hours sold within its service
territory will include the Distribution Charge.
The Distribution Charge has increased electric rates by ap-
proximately 1.55% and gas rates by 0.52%. Thus typical
monthly residential electricity bills have increased by 81t and
gas bills by 16,... well within the bounds confirmed accept-
able by a telling customer survey conducted by an indepen-
dent market research firm. Thus WWFs pioneering efficiency
model provides a win-win result for utility and customers alike.
El
IRT Environment, Inc.
S .
Program Manager's Perspective
ROGER CURTIS, ENERGY SERVICES MANAGER
Washington Water Power has forged a new path for demand-
side management by developing and implementing a non-
bypassable Distribution Charge for funding energy efficiency
programs, what's referred to in our region as "the DSM Tariff
Rider." Through this model, WWP has addressed competitive
considerations and continues to provide customer-valued de-
mand-side management. There are four items about the Dis-
tribution Charge and the 1995-96 programs that are particu-
larly important to Washington Water Power:
First and foremost, by continuing to deliver DSM we are con-
tinuing to provide customer service. Our customers have
clearly stated that they want WWP to pursue energy efficiency.
Moreover, by assisting our customers in improving their own
efficiency, WWP achieves one of its primary corporate objec-
tives, notably customer satisfaction.
A second advantage brought forth by the Distribution Charge
is that it provides DSM with an external source of funding,
alleviating its struggle for budget dollars. DSM funding no
longer "competes" with revenue producing or system rein-
forcement projects. Removing DSM funding from the inter-
nal capital budgeting process and avoiding the stigma of regu-
latory asset creation has been viewed favorably by the Com-
pany and the financial community. While a shift from capital-
izing DSM to expensing may seem to be a subtle accounting
change, we have found that it is a significant improvement in
the eyes of financial analysts.
A third benefit of the model is realized by the DSM Imple-
mentation Group. The stable, predictable funding brought by
the Distribution Charge has given staff the capability to im-
prove its administrative efficiencies and to plan programs fur-
ther into the future without the concerns of budget cuts, know-
ing that, if successful, the program will be continued. This re-
liability has also empowered our staff to take on new respon-
sibilities and acquire additional training, allowing the staff to
develop into a "self-directed team."
Lastly, the flexibility built into the target-oriented programs has
allowed DSM offerings to evolve to meet customer needs. Pre-
vious DSM programs were very specific and detailed. Any
changes to the programs generally required regulatory ap-
proval. The 1995-96 programs are broader in scope. Under a
menu of offerings, WATP can creatively provide energy effi-
ciency within the regulatory guidelines of cost-effectiveness,
non-discrimination, etc. This ability to do "adaptive manage-
ment" assists VVWP in bringing energy savings while satisfying
customers.
I would like to respond to one criticism I have heard in regard
to the Distribution Charge concept. This criticism, stemming
notably from outside WWP's service territory, is that the Distri-
bution Charge is akin to a three letter word starting with "t"
and ending with "x'. To WWP, this non-bypassable charge is
simply a change in accounting treatment. The previous ac-
counting treatment placed DSM in the ratebase with carrying
costs accruing until the time of the next rate case. Now, DSM
is expensed in the year incurred. Thus, if DSM is a service that
should be offered by a utility, then the Distribution Charge is
the superior accounting mechanism given the current changes
in the electric industry.
Our eighteen months of experience have demonstrated that
the Distribution Charge and programs it has funded have
been successful. Based on this success, WWP is seeking regu-
latory approval for a three-year extension to carry WWP's
DSM programs through 1999. My colleagues and I believe
that WWVs Distribution Charge and DSM programs are a
good response, for customer benefit, to the unknown struc-
tural future of the electric industry environment.
0 IRT Environment, Inc. 3
fl
Program Context
WASHINGTON WATER POWER OVERVIEW
Founded in 1889, Washington Water Power Company (WWP)
is an investor-owned utility headquartered in Spokane, Wash-
ington which has a service area of 30,000 square miles in east-
ern Washington and northern Idaho. WWP serves 287,000
retail electric customers and 217,000 natural gas customers in
this region known as the "Inland Northwest." Additional gas
customers are served in regions of Oregon and northern Cali-
fornia by WWVs operating division, WP Natural Gas. [R#31
WWP has been actively pursuing customer growth and added
nearly 17,000 electric and over 16,000 natural gas customers to
its system in 1995. In 1994, WWP purchased the tights to serve
electricity in northern Idaho properties including Sandpoint
from PacifiCorp, which contributed significantly to the 6%
growth in WAiFs retail electric customer base for 1995. The
Company also owns Pentaer Corporation, a private investment
firm with interests in businesses ranging from electronic de-
velopment to consumer product promotions. [R#3
As its name suggests, historically WWFs primary resource has
been hydroelectric generation. However, this has changed as
its system has grown. WWP owns and operates nine hydro-
electric projects for a total peak capacity of 908 MW, along
with a wood-waste-fueled generating station and two gas-fired
combustion turbines, and holds ownership in two coal-fired
plants and contracts with five natural gas pipelines. VVWFs
electric supply is also supplemented by purchases from
sources including Bonneville Power Administration and Ca-
nadian utilities. The WWP system has a total resource avail-
ability of 3,855 MW to meet its peak demand of 2,545 MW
including wholesale activities. Firm load for W1.VP's retail
needs is 1,600 M. [R#2,3]
WWFs electric rates are among the lowest in the country with
an average residential rate of 4.98 ,I/kWh, and 5.41t/kWh and
3.66(t/kWh for commercial and industrial respectively. In 1995,
WWP's revenues from electric sales totaled $487 million, 22%
of which resulted from wholesale transactions. Natural gas
contributed another $174 million. Total operating revenue for
1995, including non-utility earnings, was a record $755 million.
WWP has become aggressive in the wholesale market; analysts
observe that WWP responds to every wholesale power RFP
posted. In 1995, W\'VP sold 3,909 GWh to wholesale customers
for a total sales revenue of $109 million at an average price of
2.79t/kWh. VAMP enjoyed a 20% increase in wholesale power
sales in 1995 and expects to double its wholesale revenue by
1997 as it markets power across the country. [R#3,5]
fl
To improve its competitive edge, in mid-1994 the boards of
directors for WWP and Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC)
proposed merging the two utilities to form Altus Corporation.
After two years of negotiations and still no FERC approval,
WWP reconsidered the competitive advantages of the merger
and exercised its option to back out. [R#1,29]
As is the case with other hydroelectric utilities, environmental
issues are a substantial concern. This is especially true in the
Pacific Northwest where several indigenous species of fish,
including the Snake River Sockeye, Chinook Salmon,
Kootenai River White Sturgeon, and Bull Trout have been
listed or petitioned as either endangered or threatened under
the Federal Endangered Species Act in the past five years.
While none of these listings have impacted WWP's hydro
generation, they do affect some of the power purchases WWP
makes from Columbia River dams. To strengthen its steward-
ship of river ecosystems, WWP has teamed up with Trout
Unlimited to protect trout and salmon. [R#3 I
DSM HISTORY
Over a seventeen-year period, from 1978-1995, WWP spent a
total of $119,332,832 on electric demand-side management
and $7,495,788 on gas DSM. The total DSM expenditure was
$126,828,620 with $62,696,364 of that spent before 1992 sug-
gesting a significantly increased emphasis in more recent
years. Overall, WWP's efforts through 1995 have resulted in
total annual electricity savings of 559.3 GWh and 2.71 million
therms of natural gas.
4 © IRT Environment, Inc.
. .
WWP's DSM history is divided in three distinct periods: Early
efforts benefitted from the support of the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA). On a dollar-for-dollar basis, WWVs
most concentrated DSM initiative was the result of its 1992-94
DSM Plan. The most recent period is the subject of this Profile
and involves the combination of the model Distribution
Charge and set of market transformation programs. [R#131
Early efforts: WWP's DSM efforts began in 1978 with resi-
dential weatherization, a program which has remained in its
DSM portfolio ever since. Additional residential programs
funded through BPA's Conservation Buy-back provision were
added to WWP's services with BPA-funded streetlighting and
water heater programs joining the roster in 1982. With the
availability of BPA programs and support, W\ATF's DSM ef -
forts flourished in the early eighties. BPA's contribution elic-
ited savings of 78.2 GWh. WWF continued these BPA pro-
grams through 1984 after which Residential Weatherization
remained the only DSM program available from WWP. In
1987, WVVP expanded its range of qualified customers for this
program by adding a limited-income version, and in 1989 Resi-
dential New Construction was added. A fuel-switching pilot
was conducted in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho in 1991. [R#13]
The 1992-94 DSM Plan: In 1992 WWP developed a compre-
hensive DSM plan which offered choices and services for all
electric and gas customers. The approved set of programs, for-
mally known as "the 1992-1994 DSM Tariff," included 12
DSM programs for electric customers and addressed its gas
customers for the first time with six similar programs. The total
expenditure over the three-year horizon was $59,639,966,
greater than the combined total of all prior DSM
efforts. [R#131
The thrust of the 1992-94 plan was fuel switching from elec-
tricity to gas, providing needed relief for WVVP's retail electric
system load. In fact, WWP implemented one of the largest
such programs in the country with nearly two-thirds of the
total expenditure devoted to a set of fuel switching programs
collectively known as Energy Exchanger. The largest fuel
switching initiative involved converting residential electric
space heating to natural gas. Fully 73% or 213.6 GWh of the
total plan's savings involved fuel switching. Much of the fuel
switching incorporated energy efficiency opportunities that
created a significant part of the gas DSM savings of two mil-
lion therms during this period, but gas use was certainly
increased. [R#1,13]
Total DSM savings from 1992-94 reached 34 aMW while load
growth for WWP during that period was 23 aMW. With
achieved savings exceeding growth and surplus power avail-
able to meet demand, WWP made the decision to ramp-down
its DSM efforts in 1994. Annual expenditures dropped from
$29 million to $20 million with a corresponding drop in sav-
ings of nearly 500/6. This cutback was not only related to its
surplus capacity but also to increased competition and thus
increased concern about DSM's rate impacts in light of the
electric industry's shift towards competition.
The 1995-96 DSM Plan: By the close of its 1992-94 Plan,
W'ATP realized that large DSM expenditures were neither com-
patible with WWP's resource needs nor the electric industry's
newly competitive environment. Thus WWP significantly
scaled back its DSM efforts and added a revolutionary mecha-
nism for funding DSM expenditures. This experimental treat-
ment took shape as the "1995-96 DSM Tariff Rider," the sub-
ject of this Profile, and what will be referred to as WWP's Dis-
tribution Charge throughout.
© IRT Environment, Inc.
L]
Preparing for Competition
COMPETITIVE STRATEGY
Washington Water Power is clearly an example of a utility that
has turned the threat of competition into an exciting opportu-
nity. W'vVP staff have been busily preparing for what it consid-
ers the inevitable, far more competitive utility environment.
While the utility's Board of Directors has traditionally been
proactive, its addition of General Norman Schwarzkoff to the
Board was symbolic of its aggressive stance.
Jim Nybo of the Northwest Power Planning Council com-
mented that WWP has forged a highly constructive response
to industry pressures and has effectively turned the tables of
competition. Bolstered by enviably low power rates, WWP is
poised to benefit from direct access, building load while many
other utilities fear the erosion of customers, load, and thus
revenues. It is in the midst of an aggressive growth period and
has experienced steady growth in both electric and gas retail
sales as well as in the electric wholesale market. WIATP's sales
and service network now covers the entire Northwest region
and is spreading throughout the West. [R#3,51
As an entrepreneurial company, WWP has also begun to ad-
vance into the national energy services market. In May of 1996
it established WWP Energy Solutions, an unregulated subsid-
iary which will market \'\WFs energy services nationally. The
Company seeks to form partnerships through energy services
that will later lead to energy sales as the market opens to full
competition. [R#1,2]
WWP has taken an additional bold step to advance the transi-
tion to retail wheeling in the Northwest by proposing a plan to
its Washington commission for opening WWP's system up
for large industrials. The commission approved the filing on
June 26, 1996, marking the first incident of open competition
in the retail market in the Northwest. [R#20]
DSM IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
Intent on maintaining its commitment to DSM, Washington
Water Power has met the challenge of supporting DSM in a
restructured market despite surplus capacity which is antici-
pated to last well past the year 2000. WWP strategists recog-
nize the values of DSM to the utility and its customers as DSM
not only supports the Company's desire to promote efficiency
and resource diversity, but also provides customers with en-
ergy options and services. Many efficiency advocates welcome
WWP's resolution to maintain and enhance the quality of en-
ergy efficiency services for its customers despite surplus, and
applaud the utility for taking such a bold and progressive, long-
term position. WWP has exhibited a leadership role in the re-
gion while many other regional utilities are slashing their DSM
spending.
WWP's goal has been to find a means to, "more cost-efficient
acquisition of DSM," striking a balance among the many is-
sues that surround DSM acquisition in the face of the chang-
ing utility environment including possible retail wheeling. To
reach this goal, WWP has tempered its DSM programs to fit a
competitive market and developed a revolutionary mechanism
for funding DSM which has caught the industry's
attention. [R#41
THE 1995-96 DISTRIBUTION CHARGE
Competition in the electric utility industry is acutely felt in the
Pacific Northwest despite the lowest power rates in the coun-
try. WWP's remedy for competitive pressures to DSM has
been to form a Distribution Charge that all customers will pay
regardless of their eventual choice of suppliers. (Other names
are also being used to describe this mechanism including
"wires charges" and "systems benefits charges." See Transfer-
ability section for a complete discussion of various permuta-
tions of this new class of surcharges) The Distribution Charge
is attached to the distribution portion of WWVs energy ser-
vice. Distribution charges may ultimately be used to fund a
number of activities, but at WWP the surcharge has been
solely used to fund DSM.
The Distribution Charge features two very important aspects
related to competition: First, it allows the utility to collect rev-
enues to pay for DSM costs up front, providing ongoing re-
© IRT Environment, Inc.
S .
covery of DSM costs at a stable rate. This enables the utility to
move away from its practice of capitalizing (or "ratebasing)
DSM costs, thereby avoiding the accumulation of "regulatory
assets' and the need for complex and potentially controversial
cost recovery. WWP learned the hard way that capitalizing
DSM can provide for shareholder incentives, but also creates
a future burden on the utility as well as concern among finan-
cial rating agencies. By expensing rather than capitalizing its
DSM costs, as is the case with the Distribution Charge, WWP
customers will experience lower DSM costs. In fact, on a dol-
lar-for-dollar basis, expensing reduces program costs by at
least 15% by eliminating the income tax effects and share-
holder returns associated with capitalizing DSM over time.
Second, the Distribution Charge is and will be applied to all
electricity distributed over WWP's system. Thus in a direct ac-
cess environment WWP will not suffer competitively from the
rate impacts of its DSM offerings because the same charge
will be levied on all other power sales in its territory. In this
way, DSM can be maintained and refined in the region for
the benefit of all and delivered by WWP as a new form of
energy service. [R#1,2,5]
Bruce Folsom of WvVFs Rates and Tariffs Administration and
his colleagues identified several seemingly conflicting con-
cerns which had to be appropriately addressed when design-
ing WWVs new DSM strategy. These included the harmful
accumulation of regulatory assets; the desire to continue
DSM; the business perspective of a utility entering competi-
tion; regulatory concerns; and shareholder obligations. Some
of these concerns have led many utilities to abandon DSM
altogether. WWP, however, looked not only at the added costs
of DSM but the added value in its decision to continue to
provide such services. In order to develop a strategy, WWP
called on all available information resources to help define its
needs and direction for the new market. [R#1 I
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Learning from the 1992-94 DSM Plan: WWP's 1992-94
DSM Plan tested a robust portfolio of programs which were
supported by WWP's largest DSM budget. Over the three-
year period, however, the utility witnessed a dramatic industry
shift toward competition. With the need to keep operating
costs lean and given WWP's surplus power, DSM efforts were
ramped down in the final year of the plan, a decision which
received a negative response from DSM advocates.
WWP's 1992-94 DSM filing also provided for capitalizing
DSM investments to earn shareholder incentives and the de-
ferral of amortization of those assets until the utility's next rate
case. By capitalizing and deferring its DSM costs, WWP accu-
mulated nearly $60 million in regulatory assets and about $8
million in carrying costs associated with this investment which
were accrued through Allowance for Funds Used to Conserve
Energy (AFUCE). As part of the commission approval of the
1995-96 Tariff filing, WWP began amortizing its $68 million
DSM investment in January of 1995 and accelerated the amor-
tization period from 21 to 14 years in Washington and 15 years
in Idaho. This action has halted the collection of further
AFUCE charges. At the time of its next rate case, \'VVVP may
incorporate recovery on the balance of this debt into its rates.
Thus while WWP's practice of capitalizing DSM expenses and
deferring its amortization seemed prudent at the launch of the
1992-94 Plan, given the major competitive shifts in the industry
overall, its regulatory assets had quickly become
unattractive. [R#1,2]
The DSM Issues Group: In 1992, at the request of its regu-
lators, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commis-
sion (WUTC) and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
(IPUC), WWP established the DSM Issues Group (DIG) to
serve as an advisory committee for its DSM activities. DIG
members were comprised of representatives from \'VWP and
seven external agencies: WUTC, IPUC, the Public Council,
Washington State Energy Office, Northwest Power Planning
Council (NWPPC), Spokane Neighborhood Action Program,
the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, and the Washing-
ton Industrial Customers for Fair Utility Rates (WICFUR). Most
of these agencies had one representative participate in DIG.
W\VP sent 7-8 representatives to each meeting including non-
managerial staff who were encouraged to speak freely.
0 IRT Environment, Inc. 7
fl I
Preparing for Competition (continued)
The DIG approach was reinforced by WWVs distinctive cor-
porate culture and not only helped to refine the 1992-94 pro-
gram offerings but also set the stage for the design for both a
new cost collection mechanism and a new set of programs
appropriately tailored for industry competition. DIG met 24
times over a period of 30 months and primarily focused on
the economics of DSM in an increasingly competitive utility
environment. [R#1,2,51
DIG's initial activity was to review 10 points submitted by the
WUTC related to WWVs 1992 DSM filing. The Commission
felt it was necessary to address these issues in a separate fo-
rum because they had not been adequately addressed in the
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) context. DIG enabled
agencies to talk directly with program managers and their staff
as well as representatives from WWP's Rates Department
about issues related to DSM. Input from DIG members re-
sulted in a number of programmatic adjustments to the 1992-
94 Plan along with harsh criticism when WWP ramped down
its DSM efforts in 1994. While the exchange provided WWP
with helpful insights to DSM-related matters, it also led to
strenuous modification of the DSM programs and exposed
the utility to conflict over its DSM pursuits. [R#1,2,61
Latter meetings of the group addressed concerns with propos-
als for the utility's future DSM activities. As WWP was deter-
mining what steps to take in regards to DSM once the 1992-94
Plan was concluded, it was apparent that expenditures and
thus DSM acquisition were going to be rolled back consider -
ably. Several members of DIG expressed objection to the ma-
jor cuts in DSM acquisition proposed by WWP. In fact, this
matter was never resolved before the dissolution of the Group.
DIG was disbanded in 1994 although there were a few infor -
mal group meetings in 1995 and 1996. To assist in the devel-
opment of its 1997-1999 DSM Plan, WWP established a new
advisory group, the DSM Opportunity Group or "DOG'
which began meeting in May of 1996. [R#1,21
While WWP's DSM cutback toward the end of its 1992-94
Plan and reducing the expenditure level even further for its
1995-96 Plan was criticized by some DIG members, this reac-
tion to competition was hardly unique to W'vVP. DSM savings
projections for the Northwest region overall have fallen from
120 aIVllAI in 1994-95 to 70 aMW for 1997-98, reflective of con-
cerns associated with competition, the loss of BPA support for
efficiency, and utilities' wariness about incurring additional
long-term debt. [R#1,2,5]
Corporate considerations: Recognizing its mission to oper-
ate a prosperous utility while focusing on customer satisfac-
tion, loyalty, and retention, WWP outlined certain corporate
objectives for continued acquisition of DSM. Considerations
for future DSM activities included maintaining continuity in
the promotion and support of energy efficiency; providing
long-term resource diversity; recognizing the timing of re-
source needs; promoting the transformation of consumer
markets to energy-efficient choices; and providing customer
service value. These corporate objectives provided direction
for the 1995-96 DSM Plan which fundamentally called for the
conversion of DSM programs from the provision of cash in-
centives to the promotion of market transformations and en-
hanced customer service. To their credit, the visionary archi-
tects of the Distribution Charge were able to accomplish mul-
tiple and seemingly conflicting objectives and to provide a
model structure well suited for a competitive environment.
[R#41
The Customer Survey: While WWP officials were quite con-
fident in their decision to fund DSM through the implementa-
tion of a Distribution Charge, to ensure that their assumptions
were indeed in line with their customers' desires, a survey was
carried out by an independent research firm. It conducted a
telephone survey using a random sampling of 300 residential
gas and electric customers who were called in July and August
of 1994. The survey had a confidence level of 95% with a sam-
pling error range of +/-5.7%. [R#41
The survey found that 83% of the customers queried would
be willing to pay up to $1 more a month for WWP to be able
to offer new energy efficiency programs to all customers. Ad-
IRT Environment, Inc. B
S S
ditionally, 69% of those surveyed indicated that they would
rather pay $1 a month starting immediately rather than paying
$1.50-1 .75 six months later. (The latter being, of course, how
WWVs capitalized and deferred DSM expenditures had func-
tionally performed.) Of those surveyed, 6596 had never par-
ticipated in any previous \NWP energy efficiency programs.
These findings provided the assurance that a relatively small
surcharge would be acceptable - even to those that had his-
torically been program non-participants - and that expensing
DSM costs was favorable to capitalization costs which func-
tionally postponed costs but also increased the DSM rate
impact. [R#41
DETERMINING DSM ACQUISITION AND BUDGET
As the 1995-96 DSM Plan was being designed, WWP had
enough capacity to meet demand projections through 2006
and enough energy through 2010. Load forecasts showed a
compound demand growth rate of 0.8% over the next 20 years
adding 75 aMW to the system and 14 aMW during 1995-96.
Given the excess in WWP's power supply, the system's pro-
jected growth was not a problem and from a system capacity
standpoint there was no operational need for large-scale DSM
programs. Nevertheless, WWPs executives recognized DSM
as an important strategic tool with customer service value and
societal benefit and the strength of these aspects was enough
to maintain WWFs commitment to DSM. [R#1,41
WWP strategists then grappled with setting savings goals for
the upcoming filing. It was clear that WWVs DSM goals and
expenditures needed to be reduced from previous levels in
order for the utility to maintain its competitive edge. In the
end, a DSM acquisition level of 11 aMW was set for the 1995-
96 Plan, 5.7 aMW and 5.3 aMW in each of the two years re-
spectively. This was a noticeable decrease from the previous
DSM effort which had set a DSM goal of 28 aMW over a
three-year period and which actually achieved 34 aMW sav-
ings. However, the proposed levels were higher than those
specified in WIATP's 1993 IRP which included savings targets of
approximately 4 aMW of DSM annually. [R#4 I
Identifying realistic levels for DSM acquisition was only half of
the question as determining a reasonable price to pay for DSM
acquisition was equally important. Staff members from several
different utility departments worked together to derive a bud-
get which could realistically achieve acceptable DSM goals.
WWP concluded that $5 million in Distribution Charge rev-
enues annually would allow the utility to create a respectable
level of savings and keep the average rate impact under a dol-
lar a month for residential customers. Staff were concerned
that any higher level of expenditure might lead to customer
objections.
When considering this overall level of expenditure on a per
kilowatt-hour basis, the funding for DSM was equal to 1.55%
of the rate for electricity and 0.52% for gas. WWP strategists
agreed that this was an acceptable increment to be added to
customers' bills. In fact, the Distribution Charge would have
less rate impact than the cost of the 1992-94 programs. And, at
the proposed levels, WWP's overall DSM expenditure would
be equivalent to 1.2% of its revenues, consistent with an Oak
Ridge National Laboratory study which revealed that the aver-
age 1992 utility DSM expenditure was 1.3% of total
revenues. [R#41
One element which was not factored into the equation was
lost revenues created by efficiency programs. While staff sug-
gested that it would be preferable to collect lost revenues
through the Distribution Charge, WWP did not want to com-
plicate the approval process and elected not to factor lost rev -
enues into the equation. Thus, in a departure from the regula-
tory reforms initiated in the early 1990s that were intended to
promote DSM - capitalizing costs, allowing for collection of
lost revenues, and the provision of shareholder incentives -
WWP appeared to have come full circle as it had found a
simple funding mechanism to pay for valued customer energy
efficiency services. Staff and management agreed that provid-
ing customer value in a time of increased competition - es-
sential to retaining customers in the future - was enough of a
shareholder incentive for DSM.
© IRT Environment, Inc. 9
. .
Program Design and DeIiverLJ
THE 1995-1996 DISTRIBUTION CHARGE
1995-96 DSM filing: WWP filed its 1995-96 DSM Ran with
the Washington and Idaho regulatory commissions on Octo-
ber 25, 1994. The DSM Plan included a savings goal of 5.7
aMW for 1995 and 5.3 aMW savings for 1996 and a budget of
$5.7 million in 1995 and $3.7 million in 1996. Additionally,
WWP proposed to pursue gas savings of 198,500 therms in
1995 and 174,000 therms in 1996 at a budgeted cost of
$475,000 and $378,000 respectively. Submitted with the Plan
was WVWs landmark proposal for an experimental account-
ing treatment, the Distribution Charge which would be associ-
ated with the utility's distribution system for the purpose of
funding the proposed DSM activities. [R#41
Commission Approval: The filing was approved by the
WUTC on December 14,1994 and put into effect in Washing-
ton on January 1, 1995. The Idaho PUC approved the DSM
programs outlined in the filing December 20, 1994 but did not
approve the Distribution Charge until March 3, 1995. For this
reason, the Charge did not take effect in Idaho until March 10,
1996. Both the WUTC and IPUC responded to the filing with
a list of modifications and clarifications required for approval.
These considerations were shared by both the Idaho and
Washington commissions. They included a number of provi-
sions: WWP was required to assume all responsibility for un-
der collection of revenue. WWP was required to assume any
risk due to adverse tax treatment. WWP agreed that its DSM
expenditures would be subject to pmdency reviews. In Wash-
ington, WWP was required to begin amortizing its post-1991
DSM expenditures over a 14-year period starting January 1,
1995. (A 15-year amortization schedule was established in
Idaho.) Finally, the Distribution Charge was approved for a
two-year period only from 1995 to 1996 at the end of which it
would be evaluated. Additionally, the WUTC clarified that the
Distribution Charge was approved on an experimental basis
only and was not to set a precedent for cost recovery mecha-
nisms indiscriminately. [R#7,8,9]
Application of the Distribution Charge: The Distribution
Charge is applied to retail electricity distributed over WWP's
distribution system and to company-owned and customer-
owned street and area lighting rates. Similarly, \ VATVs retail
gas customers are subject to the Distribution Charge. Custom-
ers holding special contracts with WWP for electricity and gas
are exempt from the Charge. Additionally, WvVVs recent ac-
quisition of the Sandpoint region from PacifiCorp is not sub-
ject to the Charge in keeping with WVVP's transfer agreement
with PacifiCorp to decrease Sandpoint's rates by 1%.
The Amount of the Distribution Charge: The 1995-96 Dis-
tribution Charge as designed by WWP is actually a set of
charges which vary for electricity and gas sales in two states.
There is no cross-subsidization between fuels or states and
WWVs calculations for determining the amount of Distribu-
tion Charge on a per kilowatt-hour or per therm basis were
based on 1993 actual sales which were weather
normalized. [R#4]
The Charge levies a 1.5481% assessment to all electric custom-
ers in Washington and Idaho, and given the different rates in
those states, the actual rate impact varies. The Charge's rate
impact in Idaho ranges from 0.46 mills to 1.08 mills for various
customer classes for a mean impact of 0.71 mills. In Washing-
ton, impacts range from 0.47 mills to 1.03 mills for a mean
impact of 0.73 mills. The total projected 1995 revenue from the
Distribution Charge on electric rates was $4,650,000. [R#41
For gas customers, the surcharge adds a 0.52% increase to gas
rates. The rate impact for Idaho ranges from 0.189(/therm to
0.2584/therm for a mean impact of 0.243t/therm. In Washing-
ton, the rate impact ranged from 0.134/therm to 0.192t/therm
for a mean of 0.174c1/therm. The total projected 1995 revenue
from the Charge on gas rates was $427,000. [R#41
The Charge's impact on customer bills: In Washington the
Distribution Charge results in an approximate 81 increase in
typical monthly residential electric bills and a 16(t increase to
gas bills. In Idaho the bill increases are approximately 78C and
18l for electricity and gas respectively. Of course the stated
impacts reflect only bill increases resulting from the Distribu-
tion Charge but do not include any bill reductions resulting
from the ensuing DSM programs. Program participants, as in
other DSM programs, will experience positive cash flow de-
spite the surcharge.
Excess and shortfalls in Distribution Charge revenues:
WWP staff determined the cost of the Distribution Charge
such that the revenue collected closely matches the anticipated
DSM costs. The approved filing calls for the extension of
DSM programs until any remaining balance is fully expended
to avoid additional rate fluctuations. In the case of revenue
shortfalls, WWP originally proposed that the Distribution
Charge be continued until a zero balance is reached. How-
ever, the WIJTC specified that WWP assumes the responsibil-
ity for any DSM expenses which are not met by the
Charge. [R#1,4]
© IRT Environment, Inc.
10
S .
WASHINGTON IDAHO
CUSTOMER CLASS RATE INCREASE % INCREASE RATE INCREASE INCREASE
ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS (mills/kWh) (mills/kWh)
Residential 0 73 1.5481% 0 7 1.5481%
$mallCommerclal 03 1.5481% 1.08 1.5481%
Large Corn WSmaJl lnd'I 0 75 1 5481% 0 71 1.5481%
Large Induslrfal 047 1.5481% 046 1.5481%
MOOR 061 1.5481% 076 1.5481%
Street&4tea Lighting NA 1.5481% NA 1.5481%
Average 0 73 1.5481% 0.71 1.5481%
GAS CUSTOMERS (0/therm) (0/therm)
Ressclentwl 0 192 0.52% I 0 258 0 52%
Small CommercIal

0.149 0.52% 0.215 0.52%
Large Comrnerclalllndustrlal 0.134 0.52% 0.189 0 52%
Averaae 0.174 0.52% 0.243 0.52%
Keeping its customers informed: WWP has placed signifi-
cant effort on keeping its customers informed of its progres-
sive new funding mechanism for DSM and of its program
offerings. The first billing cycle in 1995 included a notice to
customers explaining the Charge's purpose and magnitude.
Similarly, the Distribution Charge was fully explained in a cus-
tomer brochure titled, 'How To Calculate Your Bill." The Dis-
tribution Charge, however, is included in the regular rate and
does not appear as a separate line item on customers'
bills. [R#61
THE 1995-96 DSM PLAN
Designing a new portfolio of programs: In rethinking
DSM WWP not only considered the funding of DSM pro-
grams but the programs themselves. The Distribution Charge
was only half of the formula presented by WWP as the chang-
ing face of the electric utility industry called for a new means
of delivering energy efficiency services to the market. Maxi-
mizing the effect while minimizing expensitures became an
important part of the equation. WWP made some notable ad-
justments to its DSM portfolio, relying less on incentives and
rebates and more on market transformation and education.
The 1995-96 DSM Plan continues several programs that were
previously implemented. In some cases, these programs were
included only to complete existing activities and commitments
and were scheduled to 'sunset" in 1995. These existing com-
mitments represent the bulk of WWP's programs which rely
on large incentives. Some of these programs have been or will
be redesigned or replaced to target the same markets using
smaller or no cash incentives at all.
The Plan also includes three C/I pilot programs reflecting
W\'VP's heavier concentration on those customer classes. This
uneven emphasis on the commercial and industrial sectors is
intentional, offsetting the heavy residential focus of the 1992-
1994 Plan. WWP's aim is to even out the expenditures for the
collective five-year period of the two DSM plans in order to
nullify any concerns of class cross-subsidization. [R#4]
THE 1995-96 DSM PROGRAMS
CARRYOVER PROGRAMS
MAP Energy Efficiency: WWP began the Manufactured
Home Acquisition Program (MAP), a BPA-administered pro-
gram, in 1992 and continued it through July of 1995. (See Pro-
file #30) This market transformation program for manufac-
tured homes provided incentives for manufacturers of energy-
efficient, electrically heated manufactured homes meeting
BPA specifications. Manufacturers of qualifying homes re-
ceived a payment of $1,500, an incentive which was reduced
from $2,500 as the program was able to rely less on cash and
© IRTEnt,ironment, Inc. 1 1
. .
Program Design and Delivery (continued)
All pilot programs included in the 1995-96 DSM Plan expire at year-end 1996.
more on the transformation created by the program's effect.
Originally scheduled to sunset in March of 1996, the program
closed in 1995.
WWP is continuing to support efficient manufactured housing
through the MAP Certification program. This latest rendi-
tion of the BPA-administered MAP program replaces incen-
tives with inspection and certification of units which meet pro-
gram efficiency standards. Those utilities in the region who
also participate in BPA's Super Good Cents program (See Pro-
file #7) have attempted to piggyback on its name recognition
by calling certifying qualified units "Super Good Cents Manu-
factured Homes." [#21
MAP Fuel Efficiency An evaluation of the MAP program
revealed that it was significantly influencing fuel choice in
manufactured homes. To counteract this situation, WWP of-
fered an additional program to manufactured home purchas-
ers who elected to site a gas space and water heating unit
within WWP's electric service territory. The incentive covered
the additional costs of installing gas heating up to $500. This
program also dosed in July 1995.
Residential New Construction: The New Residential
Construction program has been implemented to encourage
efficiency in new homes through grants for the installation of
weatherization materials and efficiency measures for custom-
ers building new electrically heated homes. Washington cus-
tomers receive $900 for single family homes under 2,000
square feet and $390 for multi-family units. In Idaho, custom-
ers received an incentive of 40t per square foot up to $720
(1,800 square feet) for single family and 20(t per square foot up
to $255 (1,275 square feet) for multi-family units. The program
was extended only to Washington customers that were issued
IRT Environment, Inc.
. .
building permits prior to July 1, 1995. The cut-off date in Idaho
was March 15, 1996.
Non-Residential Energy Code: WWP supports the State of
Washington's new non-residential energy code. \'VWP and
other participating utilities assist their customers with code
compliance by paying all or part of the cost of the standard fee
levied on non-residential developers. The fee covers code
enforcement training, plan review, and inspection. WWP paid
the full fee for buildings permitted from April 1, 1994 through
December 31, 1995. For buildings permitted from January 1,
1996 through March 31, 1997 WWP pays half the cost.
Compact fluorescent Lightbulb Rebate: WWVs Compact
Fluorescent Lighting (Cfl) rebate program was also carried
over from the 1992-94 DSM Plan. In a effort to move the mar -
ket towards CFLs, W\'VP offered a $5 point of purchase rebate
for up to five bulbs to its customers. To be eligible for the
rebates, request forms needed to be postmarked by Novem-
ber 30, 1995. By continuing the program through that date,
W'VVP fulfilled its goal to run a CFL program for three years.
Completion of this program has allowed WWP to begin a new
initiative for the lighting market. WWP has joined other utili-
ties in the region in launching LightSaver, a manufacturer's
rebate program for CFLs. (See also Profile #113) Shifting the
incentives "upstream" in the production and distribution chan-
nel for CFLs, from consumer to distributor to manufacturer,
highlights VVV'IVs efforts to decrease its levels of incentives
while continuing to support important market transformations.
Residential Weatherization: WWP is continuing its longest
running program, offering weatherization rebates at 25(r/kWh
for first-year savings up to 50% of the measure cost. The fund-
ing level for this program was decreased in this filing from
41/kWh and windows are no longer an eligible measure for
the rebate. The program also provides a $25 incentive for wa-
ter heater blankets. Customers with electric heat wishing to
participate in this program must use at least 4,000 kWh annu-
ally to heat their home in order to qualify. Applications must
be received no later than December 2, 1996. Residential
Weatherizahon is one of WWP's few direct incentive pro-
grams; WWP also provides weatherization to gas customers
carried over from the previous gas wcatherization program.
Limited Income Energy Efficiency: The Limited Income
Residential Energy Efficiency program combines the weather-
ization and fuel switching efforts from two previous programs.
In collaboration with other agencies W\fVP provides funding
for weatherization and fuel switching installations. A direct in-
centive of 40(r/kWh for first-year savings up to $1,600 per
home is issued by the program to agencies providing weather-
ization assistance. Customer who heat with gas receive $4.95
per therm saved up to $1,000 per home. The program is avail-
able to all residential customers with an income at or below
125% of the national poverty level and will run through year-
end 1996.
Commercial/Industrial Site-Specific Measure Funding:
Commercial and industrial customers, as well as developers
whose properties were to be purchased by future WWP cus-
tomers, were eligible for funding of efficiency measures instal-
lation regarding HVAC and refrigeration, controls, motors and
drives, and other process modifications. Pending approval of
the engineering estimate of potential savings, WWP funded
up to 50% of the incremental measure cost or the equivalent
of the first year's kWh savings at 5t/kVVh, whichever was less.
The program expired year-end 1996 and applicants have until
December 1, 1997 to complete projects and necessary filings
for funding.
Commercial/Industrial Gas Efficiency: The Commercial/
Industrial Gas Efficiency program is a continuation of an exist-
ing program which provided C/I gas customers with funding
for gas-saving measures. The amount of funding available was
changed for the 1995-96 DSM Plan to the lesser of either half
of the total measure costs or an equivalent to the saved energy
using a rate which varies according to measure life. The pro-
gram expires November 30, 1996 and projects must be com-
pleted by December 2, 1997.
NEW PROGRAMS
Natural Gas Awareness Program: To promote the use of
natural gas as a residential heating fuel, WWP has launched
an awareness program. Education on natural gas benefits is
delivered using several means including the media and adver-
tising. WWP has already launched a major brochure mailing,
targeting natural gas candidates who are currently heating with
electricity. To further encourage switching to natural gas, WWP
offers zero down, no fee, market-rate financing to residential
customers for the installation of gas-heating equipment.
This new program stands as a strong example of how WWVs
program shift has worked. The previous DSM plan was domi-
nated by WWP's fuel switching efforts collectively known as
the Energy Exchanger program. Through Energy Exchanger
WWP was distributing incentives from $2,700-3,300 per house-
hold and the program had 3,000-5,000 participants each year.
Given this success, DIG members were upset that WWP was
IRT Environment, Inc. 13
. .
Program Design and Delivery (continued)
discontinuing its fuel-switching incentive. However, the Natu- vendors and trade professionals. Typically these seminars
ral Gas Awareness program succeeded in drawing 1,300 par -
ticipants in 1995 while eliminating the cash incentive and re-
placing it with attractive financing using no incentive at all.
Resource Conservation Manager Pilot: The Resource
Conservation Manager (RCM) pilot market transformation
program alms at improving the efficiency in public schools.
WWP will guarantee the salary of two RCMs hired from cur-
rent school district staff who will work with school district fac-
ulty, staff, and students to reduce resource consumption in
district facilities. Each RCM will have a jurisdiction of 25-40
schools. WWP will assist in funding the training for RCMs as
well as the computer tracking system.
Commercial/Industrial Building Commissioning Pilot:
WWP is offering a pilot DSM program for 6-10 commercial
entities that will become WWP customers. The pilot offers
funding of the lesser of either $10,000 per building or the ac-
tual cost of commissioning and will expire at year-end 1996.
Commercial/Industrial Trade Ally Pilot WWP will work
with C/I customers and trade allies to identify energy-saving
projects which are being blocked by market barriers. The pro-
gram provides a variety of assistance including partial funding
of feasibility studies, measurement and evaluation of project
savings, and any other service or assistance agreed on by the
customer and WWP. The utility will fund projects at 5(t per
kilowatt-hour saved for up to the first year's energy savings.
MARKETING
As WWP makes its journey from being a "grant dispensers to
technical consultants and customer-focused service providers,
marketing becomes an ever more essential element of suc-
cess. Program leaders recognize that strong marketing and
solid communication with customers must compensate for
having less incentive dollars available to attract customers to
programs. This is the first crucial step toward forming partner-
ships with customers and building cusomter loyalty.
WWVs commitment to an emphasis on building customer
relations has defined WWVs marketing strategy for its com-
mercial and industrial customers. Marketing and DSM repre-
sentatives have invested a greater amount of time with WWP's
C/I customers, informing them of the added values of energy
efficiency and the opportunities available to them at WWP.
Technical seminars on subjects such as HVAC, lighting, and
indoor air quality have been conducted and have included
have attracted 60± participants, underscoring the interest that
W1,'VP has generated in efficiency in its service territory. WV\TP
representatives follow up the seminars with personal calls and
visits to the attendees.
WWP has not only concentrated on building relations and
partnerships with its customers but building a network with
professionals as well. As part of its evolution from incentives
to customer assistance, WWP has expanded its services avail-
able for customers. Partnering with third-party contractors,
engineers, and lenders enables WWP to connect its customers
to the technical and financial support they need for imple-
menting energy efficiency. Overcoming customer barriers
through third-party partnerships is the central thrust behind
the Trade Ally Pilot.
Marketing through the mail has proven quite successful.
Through its Natural Gas Awareness program, WWP contacted
25,000 potential fuel switching customers by mailing them a
brochure detailing the savings and benefits of switching to
natural gas. This program has been quite successful in proving
that participation can still be achieved without incentives.
Added support for all of WWP's programs is given through
basic marketing methods such as bill stuffers, media advertise-
ments, and through the Internet at www.wwpco.com .
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
The development of the Distribution Charge and 1995-96
DSM Plan benefitted from the insights and participation of
staff from five separate WWP departments. Contributions were
made from Rates and Tariff Administration, DSM Planning
and Evaluation Department, Electric Power Supply, Gas Sup-
ply, and DSM Implementation. This "across the board repre-
sentation in the process ensured that the various aspects of
the utility were considered in formulating an appropriate ap-
proach to energy efficiency. The core planning committee
consisted of seven people who participated in the DIG meet-
ings as well. However, as many as five to ten others also par-
ticipated in the process. These strategists pieced together in-
formation from both internal and external parties, drawing
from both past experience and customer input to design the
Distribution Charge. Implementation of the DSM Plan has
been carried out by a full time DSM Implementation staff of
five, including Energy Services Manager, Roger Curtis, and
support by three evaluation staff members. In addition, there
are nine to ten core contractors which Curtis and his staff rely
on to deliver programs. [R#1,14]
14
© IRT Environment, Inc.
. I
Monitoring and Evaluation
One major change in WWP's DSM posture has been its re- What is different between WWP's previous and current DSM
laxed emphasis on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of pro-
gram savings. For its 1992-94 DSM Plan, each program was
fully evaluated with both a process and impact evaluation. This
required a corporate commitment of approximately $1.5 mil-
lion over the three-year planning horizon. In contrast, the bud-
get for the 1995-96 DSM Plan is only on the order of $50,000,
signifying a fundamental difference in its programs from DSM
as a regulated activity to DSM as a desired customer service
offering.
In the past, regulators in Washington, Idaho, and for that mat-
ter states across the nation have carefully scrutinized DSM
program costs to make sure that ratepayers have truly
benefitted from and have been treated equitably by compre-
hensive programs and most importantly from rather lavish in-
centives. Now as WWP has modified its programs to support
more subtle shifts through market transformations and educa-
tion, and as the utility has reduced its overall expenditures, its
emphasis on evaluation has been eased off, suggesting that
the ultimate test of its new programs' effectiveness will be con-
sumer response instead of regulatory approval.
Programs in the 1992-94 DSM Plan, including the dispropor-
tionately large Energy Exchanger offerings, were carefully evalu-
ated to determine reliable estimates of savings produced by all
measures installed. WWP has continued to use findings from
these proven methods for quantifying program savings for the
carryover programs in 1995-96. Established methodologies for
determining program savings include a prescriptive approach
using data collected from impact studies, billing analyses, and
engineering estimates. Having established mechanisms for cal-
culating energy savings has and will save WWP a considerable
amount of M&E dollars for its 1995-96 Plan.
Plans is the fundamental shift toward market transformation
programs. Bill Johnson of WWP's DSM Planning and Evalua-
tion Department notes that for these types of programs, the
more traditional tests of program cost-effectiveness no longer
apply. Because WWVs newer program's focus on providing
the customer with information and technical assistance, rather
than issuing a set rebate for each unit of equipment installed,
their performance is more difficult and perhaps impossible to
accurately track. Thus, evaluation efforts for the current DSM
Plan have focused on the qualitative impacts of the programs.
For example, the CR. Rebate program focused on calculating
energy savings based on established savings estimates and
units sold through the program. Future evaluation efforts for
the Light5aver program will examine penetration and market
transformation, relying primarily on store surveys.
WWP's pilot programs will necessarily require monitoring since
achievable savings are ambiguous at this point. In the case of
the Resource Conservation Manager pilot, tracking program
savings is a necessary function of the program, as W\ATP is re-
sponsible for any portion of the RCM's salary which is not
recuperated through savings. Thus WWP has contracted an
energy service company to determine the baseline consump-
tion and estimated savings for participating schools.
For the Building Commissioning pilot program WWP will in-
vestigate numerous methodologies for evaluating program per-
formance. The Building Commissioning pilot will benefit
heavily from methodologies developed by the BPA and now
defunct Washington State Energy Office, both of which are
experienced in implementing commissioning programs. The
Trade Ally pilot, on the other hand, will rely on site-specific
engineering estimates along with follow-up surveys.
© IRT Environment, Inc. 15
.
Program savings
ELECTRIC SAVINGS
Electric savings for the 1995-96 DSM plan through April of
1996 totaled 36,704 MWh, 38.7% of the projected savings for
the two-year plan and 38.00/6 of its originally budgeted savings.
These figures however, do not give a just representation of the
plan's performance to date since the reported fi6ures do not
account for savings which will occur for projects not yet com-
pleted nor for projects which are completed but have not yet
been monitored for savings. New programs also require a cer-
tain amount of time to get started and as such are not expected
to produce immediate savings. Thus the overall actual savings
do not provide a complete picture of how the current programs
are performing. WWFs Bruce Folsom and Bill Johnson, both
of whom have heavily participated in the development of the
Distribution Charge, have indicated that the 1995-96 DSM Plan
is on track for reaching its projected savings. [R#1,2,10,111
Carryover Programs: Of WWP's pre-existing programs,
Residential New Construction has been the most successful,
achieving near four times its original budget of 613 MWh.
With savings of 2,278 MVVh to date, the program is projected
to save a total of 2,540 MWh for the two-year period. MAP
Energy Efficiency has also garnered greater savings than ex-
pected as more than the predicted number of qualifying
manufactured homes were placed in WWFs territory. MAP
has produced a total annual savings of 4,117 MWh as of April
1996 and is expected to save 7,796 MWh by year-end.
In contrast, the MAP Fuel Efficiency and CFL Rebate captured
much less than their budgeted levels of savings before closing.
Similarly, Residential Weatheiization and limited Income En-
ergy Efficiency have achieved 36 0/6 and 461/6 of their original
budgeted savings to date. Projected savings for both these pro-
grams have been scaled back somewhat in recognition of the
fact that after twelve years of running the program the avail-
able market is saturated. WWP's C/I programs have reported
low savings levels to date, undoubtedly due to the longer
implementation time that larger projects require.
New Programs: Over half of the total savings to date
achieved by W\'VP's 1995-96 DSM Plan has been accom-
plished through the fuel switching effort, Natural Gas Aware-
ness, which has produced an electricity savings of 18,659
N'PvVh. Of course, the electric "savings" represent only a shift
from electricity consumption to natural gas consumption,
DSM but not thermodynamic efficiency per Se. WWVs pilots
are still in the process of starting up and, as such, have given
no indication of whether they will be successful or not. [R#10I
GAS SAVINGS
Total gas savings through April 1996 was 196,042 therms,
equivalent to 45% of the originally budgeted savings for the
gas side of the DSM plan. Based on results to date, the origi-
nal budget has been increased by 130% to 993,488 therms.
Again, these figures do not reflect the performance of the pilot
programs which have not reported savings yet. [R#11 I
WWP's Gas Residential Weatherization activities included in
the table reflect an enormous carryover of participants from
the 1992-94 DSM Plan. With sizable obligations remaining
from the previous plan, \'\WP did not include any new efforts
for gas weatherization but focused only on addressing these
spillover customers.The program's spillover achieved the great-
est savings with an annual total of 94,485 therms. High Effi-
ciency Appliance Education was included in the original bud-
get but was cancelled. [R#11]
The C/I Gas Efficiency program has also performed well. Sav-
ings to date have totalled 88,336 therms, 46 1/6 of its original
budget. Based on this level of achieved savings, which does
not reflect those projects which are not completed or have not
been verified, the program's savings projections have been
boosted to 827,046 therms, over four times its original ex-
pected savings. [R#11I
VARIATIONS FROM THE FORMER DSM PLAN
Electric Programs: WWP's 1995-96 DSM Plan is expected to
achieve a total savings of 94,783 MWh over a two year period,
one-third of the 1992-94 DSM Plan savings of 293,690 MWh
over three years. Thus, if WVVP meets its 1995-96 goals, its
savings will be equivalent to half the 1992-94 Plan when taking
into account the difference in time. [R#10,13]
Gas Programs: WWVs new DSM Plan is expected to save a
total of 993,488 therms of gas, 38% of 1992-94 DSM Plan ac-
complishments of 2,551,940 therms. C/I Gas Efficiency ac-
counts for 827,046 therms, or 83% of the projected total. Dur -
ing the 1992 Plan, C,/I Gas Efficiency only accounted for 4.3%
of the total savings. This inversion underlines WWP's shift in
concentration from the residential sector to commercial and
industrial accounts. The current DSM Plan's Residential
Weatherization and limited Income Energy Efficiency pro-
grams outperformed the original budget with a combined total
annual savings of 106,442 therms, but still only represent 11%
of the total gas savings for the 1995-96 Plan. The previous
DSM plan relied heavily on residential programs which gar-
nered an annual savings of 2,441,067 therms. [R#11,13]
@ IRT Environment, Inc.
16
. S
SAVINGS OVERVIEW BUDGETED SAVINGS PROJECTED SAVINGS ACTUAL SAVINGS
.
ELECTRIC PROGRAMS
GAS PROGRAMS
Rpqidpnthil Wthnr.IatiQn
- MWh
2,015
526
613
9,636
1,051
964
4,205
36,704
37,230
701
701
701
1,489
96,535
Therms I
21,500
3,000
192,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
156,000
432,500
MWh
7,796 4,117
88 88
2,540 2,278
9,636 0
438 438
613 350
2,891 1,927
29,784 8,848
37,230 18,659
701 0
701 0
876 0
1,489 0
94,783 36,704
94,485 94,485
11,957 11,957
827,046 88,336
20,000 0
20,000 0
20,000 1,264
0 0_
993,488 196,042
MEASURE LIFETIME
WWP has supplied average measure lifetimes for all measures
installed through the 1995-96 DSM Plan. Residential Weather-
ization measures are assumed to have lives of 30 years for in-
sulation and 5 years for water-heater blankets. CFLs have been
assigned a measure life of 7 years. Manufactured housing's
measure life is 30 years. Fuel switching installations are given a
25-year measure life. The C/I Site Specific program has been
assigned measure lifetimes ranging from 10-20 years. The Re-
sults Center also assumed a measure life of 30 years for new
construction and 7 years for showerheads. These values were
used by The Results Center to determine annual weighted
average measure lifetimes that were used to calculate the cost
of saved energy. Weighted averages for programs with multiple
installations were also calculated by The Results Center based
on the lifetime assumptions stated above.
© IRTEnvironinent, Inc. 17
S
Additional Program Benefits
Avoided emissions: WWP has not attempted to quantify the
environmental benefits of its past, present and future DSM
programs. While emissions are not a concern for the hydro-
electric portion of the WWFs power supply, approximately
one-third of the utility's daily load is met with thermal genera-
tion, where emission reduction benefits of DSM are realized.
Transferring WWP's 1995-96 DSM Plan's results to date to
other service territories, as the table on the next page suggests,
could result in reduced CO2 emissions of as much as 84 mil-
lion pounds annually. This does not reflect the added emis-
sions resulting from increased natural gas consumption due to
fuel switching programs.
Additional environmental benefits: Throughout the
Northwest, the ample supply of hydroelectric power has pro-
vided low-cost electricity but at a high cost to the river environ-
ment. The depletion on fish populations in the Columbia
River system has been a major driver of DSM activities
throughout the region thanks to the leadership as spelled out
in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Plant and Conservation
Act of 1980 and the guidance of the Bonneville Power Admin-
istration. While WWVs hydroelectric system does not directly
contribute to the "hot spots" of environmentalists' concerns
about the Northwest rivers, its system still benefits from the
energy efficiency efforts of WWP. Many of the regional con-
servation efforts have been measured in saved salmon and
programs in terms of the cost per saved salmon!
NON-ENERGY RELATED BENEFITS
WWVs 1995-96 DSM portfolio demonstrates a number of
non-energy related benefits which are exhibited by various
programs. Numerous programs delivering retrofits in both the
residential and C/I sectors have contributed to regional eco-
nomic development by providing added business for local
professionals and suppliers. Limited income programs have
provided an obvious benefit of lowering energy bills for those
most in need of such relief. In addition, these programs also
help to mitigate bill arrearages for WWP. The Resource Con-
servation Manager pilot contains an educational component,
teaching tomorrow's leaders the importance of efficiency.
Customer Value: \'VWFs decision to pursue DSM despite
its sufficient resource levels is a clear indication that energy
efficiency carries weight in terms of customer value. This as-
sertion has been supported by the customer survey which re-
affirmed customers' interests in continuing efficiency pro-
grams, while also affirming that DSM is a valuable tool in a
competitive arena. WWP has been at the forefront of bringing
competition to the Northwest and has taken every opportu-
nity to advance its own competitive edge. Its decision to con-
tinue DSM was dearly made with competition in mind, bol-
stered by the "customer satisfaction" that the utility was confi-
dent its programs would support.
Strategic Advances for the Competitive Market:
Clearly the greatest benefit of WWP's 1995-1996 DSM Plan
and Distribution Charge is that it has introduced a new genre
of DSM in the Pacific Northwest which works in a competitive
market. The Plan and Distribution Charge funding mechanism
is a highly proactive and constructive response to both regional
and national energy services considerations. WWP's early ex-
periment with the Distribution Charge has given DSM a new
home in the competitive market, and has not only solved the
problem of how to deliver energy efficiency services in its own
territory, but has demonstrated a effective model which can
applied in other territories throughout the Northwest and for
other part of the country as well.
IRT Environment, Inc.
I B
S S
BUDGETED PROJECTED ACTUAL., ACTUAL COSTS
COSTS COSTS COSTS (1/95-3/96)
I1IQ'..1IOP.) (1IQiIQR I PlIPIi73d
ELECTRIC PROGRAMS
lilA P $900,6971 $3,528,695 $1,881,086 $1,605,131
MAP Fuei Efficiency $225 1 74 $9,202 $9,202 $7,852
Residential New Construction

$224,581 $560,391 $484,678 $413,576
Non-Residential EnergyCode $477793 $477793 $290577 $247949
CFL Rebate $145,726 $75,090 $76,151 $64,980
Residential Weatherization $390983 $219409 - $119301 $101,800
Limited Income Energy Efficiency $1,097,932 $726,557 $461,472 $393,774
C/7 Site Specific $4,651,183 $3143346 $1,077 ,560 $919482
Natural Gas Awareness
$574,667 $574,667 - $94_407 $80_557
Resource ConServation__Fwfon_____ $98_000 $117_416 $36_759 $31_366
CA B $200000 $214824 $51044 $43556
C $200000 $152961 $72371 $61754
F $200134 $257652 $57518 $49080
Total Elect. $9,386,870 $10058003 $4,712,126 $4 ,020,857
Dlstrtbuboii .haig $8 606 249 $8 743 577 $5,796,330 $4 946 008
GAS PROGRAMS
Residen .
109
$75,271 $309,077 $309,077 $263,735
Limited $22571 $44494 $39494 $33700
PRIM •..__ $331,981 $515,906 $118,969 $101,516
FiesourceCo_s $16667 $30930 $21_965 $18743
C/I Building $16,667 $16,667 $2,382 $2,033
C/I Trade/I $16667 $56577 $9739 $8310
High i $422_804 $0 $0 $0
Total $902_628 $973_651 $501_626 $428_037
Distribution___Chetge Rev enues_____________________ 802161 862 ,600 $630,001 $537_580
$10,289,498 $11,031,654 $5,213,752 $4,448,895
TotalDlst____Charge Revenues _______________________________ $9,408,410 $9,606,177 $6,426,331 $5,483,588
COST EFFECTIVENESS
The Results Center's total cost of saved energy for 1995-96
electric program activities to date was 0.78t/kWh, levelized to
1990 US$. if WWP meets its savings and budget projections,
its overall cost of saved energy will be 0.641/kWh. The Results
Center calculated a cost of saved energy of 1.44V/kWh for the
1992-94 DSM Plan. Based on these figures, even if WWP does
not meet its projections it will have improved its cost effective-
ness from the previous DSM Plan by nearly a factor of two.
WWP own calculation of the cost of saved energy factors in
the utility's cost of capital and taxes and equated to 1.36(t/kWh
in 1990 US$. [R#2,41
© IRT Environment, Inc. 1
S
Lessons Learned
WWP's corporate culture has helped to cultivate innova-
tion among its staff- Bruce Folsom places a strong emphasis
on the importance of WWVs unique corporate culture which
he and others credit with the creation of the progressive Distri-
bution Charge mechanism and WWP's current portfolio of
programs. Folsom explains that the culture minimizes hierar-
chy and encourages free speaking to tap employees' energy
and ideas. This empowering approach was evident during the
DIG meetings where strong and open communication was
fostered and effectively transformed into progressive ideas and
actions. By approaching business with this philosophy, WWP
has nurtured its staffs creativity and honed its operations, so
critical in today's utility industry environment.
Fundamentally, staff have learned that even a utility
with excess capacity and the nation's lowest power rates
can create a win-win situation with its customers by
funding valued efficiency programs through a Distribu-
tion Charge: By carefully querying its customers of their in-
terests and then communicating its intentions dearly, Wash-
ington Water Power has been able to turn the tables on DSM.
Staff have taken the negative aspects of DSM - notably its
perceived rate impact - and turned it into an effort that cus-
tomers can be proud to support. Thus the utility has effectively
taken a formerly mandated discipline that it believes had
turned sour, creating a losing situation from both utility and
customer perspectives, to a valued customer service that has
dearly created a win-win situation.
In order to continue to deliver energy efficiency in a
competitive age, utilities must learn to get more bang for
less bucks,... replacing incentives with more service:
WWP recognized that it could not continue providing costly
incentives to its customers to elicit participation in DSM, espe-
cially given its lack of resource need. Its program developers
understood that there were other viable alternatives for pro-
moting efficiency and transforming markets. WA/Vs new gen-
eration of DSM is less cash oriented and more information
and service oriented. This requires more creativity and market-
ing and more time for customers to adjust. However, by taking
advantage of alternatives such as third-party financing, con-
tracting, and outsourcing, WWP looks forward to achieving
DSM more cost effectively.
I
Programs can indeed continue to be effective without
big incentives: WWP has proven that programs can be
highly effective without the attractive incentives that predomi-
nated the "past generation of DSM programs. This point has
been proven best by the success with the Natural Gas Aware-
ness program. While previous fuel switching efforts garnered
2,000-5,000 participants annually, these efforts were also quite
costly as WWP was providing $2,700-$3,300 per home in in-
centives. WWP's current fuel switching program, Natural Gas
Awareness, netted 1,300 participants in 1995 with no incen-
tives at all. Similarly, WWP's MAP program incentive dropped
from $2,500 per home to $1,500 while program participation
levels have continued unabated. This trend will progress even
further as WWP replaces the MAP incentive program with the
MAP certification program which continues to transform the
manufactured home market without the use of rebates.
WWP has learned that offering consistent services is es-
sential not only for the success of a program but also for
the company: Toward the end of the 1992-94 DSM Plan,
many of WWVs programs experienced drastic reductions in
program funding, in fact by as much as 80%. This caused fluc-
tuations in participation as customers rushed to "get in before
the barn door closed. It also led to external criticism. As WWP
shifts to programs which are service and education oriented,
without large rebates and incentives, staff believe that long-
term stability will be even more crucial for making customers
and trade allies familiar with the services. Program consistency
provides another benefit to the utility as it allows the adminis-
tration of a program to become streamlined, thus trimming
costs. The Distribution Charge supports this concept by pro-
viding a known and stable level of funding for programs.
Customers want energy efficiency services: While many
utilities in the Northwest and around the country are scaling
back if not completely abandoning their DSM programs as a
short-term response to competitive pressures, WTtATP could
have easily done the same. The utility has no need to supple-
ment its resources for the next decade. However, WWP chose
to continue to deliver energy efficiency services to its custom-
ers because of its perceived customer value. WWP reaffirmed
this understanding by conducting a customer survey which
revealed overwhelming support for paying a little more each
month for continued energy efficiency services.
0 IRT Environment, Inc.
OR
10,400 1 46,027,000 01 105,000 - 0
9,224 39,971,000 0 250,000 1 2, 000
mbined Cyc
9.000 39.971,000 0 153,0001 0
9,000 39,971,000 0 73,000 0
9,000 39,971,000 0 10,000 0
eam-46 Oil
- -
- 9,840 2.00% 66,618,000 1,009,000 119,000 113,000
10,400 2.20% 70,655,000 1,001,000 - 150,000 -- 73,000
10,400 1.00% 70,655,000 143,000 120,000 38,000
10,400 0.50% 70,655,0001 420,000 150,000 23,000
mbustion Turbine
13,600 0.30°b 88,420,000 176,0001 273,000 15,000
uel
15,0001 0.20% 104,973,000 271,000 356,0001 79,000,
0 IRT Environment, Inc.
S
! U I -T-i 47j &-; •1 -1 •..iè j 'I' I c lull
WWP's total DSM expenditure for the 1995-96 DSM Plan
through April of 1996 was $5,213,752. Thus far, WWP has ex-
pended 51% of its original DSM budget of $10,289,498. Pro-
jected expenditures through year-end 1996 have been raised to
$11,031,654 in expectation of increased participation primarily
in the MAP Energy Efficiency program. Electric DSM programs
have accounted for $4,712,126 of the total costs to date with the
balance of $501,626 attributed to gas programs. [R#10,11 I
Carryover programs for the 1995-96 DSM Plan account for the
93% of the total expenditures to date with costs totaling
$4,867,567. MAP Energy Efficiency accounted for the largest
portion with a total of $1,881,086. Program costs are expected to
reach $3,528,695, nearly four times its original budget. WWVs
direct incentive programs have collectively cost $2,125,873. All
of these programs, except for CA Site Specific and C/I Gas Effi-
ciency, had reduced incentives from previous years and will be
further reduced or replaced for WWP's next filing. [R#10,11 I
In sharp contrast, WWP's new programs have cost only
$346,185 through April 1996. The tremendous cost difference
between carryover and new programs is the result WWP was
hoping to see in its shift toward low-cost DSM. Natural Gas
.
Awareness, which produced half of the utility's electric sav-
ings to date, has had a total expenditure of $94,407. W\'VP has
also invested $57,518 in developing regional programs, chiefly,
the LightSaver program. The balance of the new program costs
is attributed to pilot programs.
DISTRIBUTION CHARGE REVENUES
Both the electric and gas portions of the 1995-96 DSM Plan
are expecting a slight shortfall in their respective Charge rev-
enues. The total revenue for the Distribution Charge is pro-
jected to be $9,606,177 for the two-year period. This falls no-
ticeably short of the projected costs of $11,031,654. However,
this figure includes continued MAP program commitments
which will extend into 1997 to cover program expenses for
homes manufactured prior to the program's termination date.
These costs will be paid through Distribution Charges col-
lected in 1997 provided that WWVs filing for its 1997-99 DSM
Plan is approved by the commissions involved. One of
WWFs objectives in its 1995-96 DSM plan was to lower and
stabilize DSM expenditures. The 1995-96 DSM Han had an
original budget of $10,289,498 which has since been adjusted
to $11,031,654, compared to the previous DSM Plan which
expended $59,639,962, nearly six times as much. [R#10,11,131
© IRT Environment, Inc.
20
I O
WWP's experience is an excellent illustration of the
strength and importance of good communication: WWP
is well reputed for communicating with both customers and
outside agencies and regulators, establishing good faith on
both fronts. Customers trust the utility enough to tell them in
a survey that they are willing to pay extra for energy efficiency.
Likewise, maintaining strong and thorough communication
with regulators has afforded WWP the flexibility to learn, grow,
and adapt its DSM programs as needed.
Precollecting funds for DSM has allowed greater flex-
ibility in implementing programs: Traditional means of
funding DSM recovered costs through rates after the fact. This
procedure proved very restricting for utilities which avoided
program exceptions or digressions which might risk recovery.
By minimizing the concern over cost recovery and paying for
program activities up front, W\,\TP has earned itself some lati-
tude for creativity. As long as savings occur and the programs
are performing cost effectively, WWP's regulatory commis-
sions will remain satisfied with the utility's new-found empha-
sis. Regulators maintain the right to review the prudency of
any program activities and expenditures, thereby keeping
WWP bound to performing cost-effective DSM. This has en-
abled WWP to submit fairly broad filings, bypassing the need
for regulatory approval for any changes or exceptions. Such
flexibility enables W'vVP to run its programs more effectively
and efficiently. For example, the Building Commissioning Pi-
lot has very open definitions, allowing WWP to experiment
and evaluate building commissioning as a DSM application.
Including lost revenue recovery in the Distribution
Charge will likely be desirable in the future: V.WP pur-
posefully did riot include lost revenue recovery in its filing
because it wanted the Distribution Charge to he expeditiously
approved. Given the big issues in front of both commissions,
there was concern that one more potentially contentious issue
could "tip the boat" and further delay WWVs new DSM pos-
ture. Also, with such a large portion of WWP's electric savings
resulting from fuel switching, many of the related revenues
are not "lost but rather "transferred" to gas sales. However,
Bruce Folsom recommends to other utilities that they consider
including lost revenues in the collection of Distribution
Charges to the extent that lost revenues are indeed measur-
able and real.
0 IRT Environment, Inc. 23
0
Transferability
Washington Water Power's pioneering efforts with establish-
ing and testing its Distribution Charge has been a major con-
tribution to the electric utility industry as it searches intensely
for new and viable structures to support efficiency in a time of
industry restructuring. The model and its concept is very much
"the talk of the town" as it stands poised to fulfill multiple ob-
jectives and to create win-win energy services opportunities
for utilities and their customers.
While distribution charges, or what are also known informally
as "wires charges" and "systems benefits charges," have not
actually been implemented by other utilities, they have been
examined and proposed all across the country. Similar struc-
tures have been proposed in states including California, Con-
necticut, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Wisconsin. Califomia has been in the forefront
of the restructuring debate since its "blue book" proposal in
1994. The California PUC's long-awaited ruling on restructur -
ing in December of 1995 made the industry familiar with the
term "non-bypassable public goods charge," a model that
closely resembles WWP's Distribution Charge. WWP's charge
happens to be the first of its kind to provide empirical evi-
dence on the success of the model's implementation.
PERMUTATIONS OF DISTRIBUTION CHARGES
There are many potential permutations of WWP's Distribu-
tion Charge model: For instance, the charges can be levied at
a number of points and by a number of different parties. Po-
tentially they can be attached to transmission systems for
wholesale transactions and/or distribution systems as is the
case with WWFs charge. "Systems benefits charges" are being
considered in both California and New York that will be uni-
versally applied to all utilities' distribution systems in these
states. Note that "systems" in this case is plural, as are "ben-
efits." Ralph Cavanagh prefers the term "Universal Systems
Benefits Charges" and advocates multiple purpose charges that
are universally applied within a state or region. [R#301
When considering applying distribution charges, another ma-
jor option crops up: Who will distribute the funds to imple-
ment efficiency programs? In several states discussions are tak-
ing place as to whether this function will best be ;erved by the
local utility or by an independent referee. David Wooley of
the Pace Energy Project commented that it's still unclear in
New York as to whether the funds will be best directed to
.
programs per se, or allocated on a bidding basis. Managing
this function could potentially be fulfilled by a state energy
office, an independent agency or non-profit organization, or
by another existing government or power pooling agency.
These options are being explored in the Northwest where es-
tablishing an energy efficiency trust is also being discussed.
[R#311
Another issue to consider pertains to what gets funded. In
general the types of programs that distribution charges will
fund are those that won't take place in the free market. This
might include a number of conventional DSM programs as
well as intriguing market transformation activities, low-income
assistance, investments in renewable energy, and well as a
host of research and development on important long-term is-
sues such as the effects of electromagnetic fields. In California,
"Competitive Transition Charges" will be used to recover
stranded assets. Stranded asset recovery accounts for a major
share of the distribution charge being levied in the New
Hampshire Retail Wheeling Pilot.
One of the unsavory aspects of distribution charges is that
they may become regarded as taxes. In reality, these forms of
charges effectively unbundle the costs of beneficial programs
from the costs of power generation, transmission, and distri-
bution. While distribution charges explicitly reflect the true
costs of beneficial programs, their perception as "taxes" could
potentially spell the kiss of death for this mechanism. (It's hard
not to remember the public's overt reaction to relatively small
4.3'1/gallon rise in gasoline taxes.) Ashok Gupta of the Natural
Resources Defense Council says his organization is concerned
about this potential perception as it could lead to unnecessary
and politically charged, annual oversight. Given this potential
liability, the distribution charge concept must be very carefully
communicated. For better and worse, to date, approval of
DSM program costs has resided at the state regulatory com-
mission level,.., associating distribution charges with taxes
could result in funding levels determined annually by state
legislatures. [R#271
THE SURCHARGE CONCEPT
While collecting DSM costs up-front has taken new meaning
in today's dynamic regulatory environment, the concept is not
new to Europeans. In Oslo, Norway, electric customers have
been paying a surcharge to fund energy efficiency since 1982.
© IRT Environment, Inc.
24
S S
The surcharge equates to about 2.9% of the average electric
rate and finances the Oslo Ekon Fund, a revolving fund that
has been used to promote a host of energy efficiency projects
through grants and loans. (See Profile #79) Originally the Fund
was administered by Oslo Energi, more recently it has been
moved out of the utility context and is administered by an
agency of the city government.
In 1991, electric utility competition was ushered in throughout
Norway with the passage of the Norwegian Energy Act. As is
the case in the United States, this led to concern about the
survival of DSM in a competitive market. Thus the Norwegian
government took action to support energy efficiency by im-
posing a surcharge of 0.03t/kWh (approximately 1% of rates).
Utilities collect the revenue which funds government-estab-
lished Regional Energy Efficiency Centers. [R#18,221
In Denmark, the Copenhagen Lighting Department has imple-
mented a similar strategy through which a 0.083/kWh sur-
charge is levied on all electricity sales. (See Profile #80) The
surcharge, which is less than a half a percent of Copenhagen's
average rate of 28.2/kWh, funds efficiency retrofits in both
the residential and commercial sectors.
In England and Wales, the energy industry was privatized in
1992 and a similar "levy has been implemented to fund effi-
ciency programs there. The UK's Office of Electricity Regula-
tion (Offer), a government body, has levied a £1 (US$1.50)
per year charge for all "franchise market customers" who de-
mand less that 100 kW. Its enabling legislation provided that
the charge will be collected for four years ending in 1998 and
is will raise approximately £25 million annually. The revenue
collected from the charge will be administered by regional
electric companies subject to approval by the government's
Energy Savings Trust which was established in 1992 in re-
sponse to the Rio Earth Summit's Agenda 21. [R#181
In the United States, Washington Water Power is clearly the
most advanced of any form of distribution charge and the first
explicitly non-bypassable charge to be implemented. How-
ever, Arizona Public Service (APS) has implemented the En-
ergy Efficiency and Solar Energy (EPSE) charge since 1992 as a
means of tracking its energy efficiency expenditures. For APS,
the EESE charge was merely a means of unbundling its costs
to distinguish its DSM expenditures for accounting purposes.
Its model was not established as a competitive tool, nor does it
play an integral part of the utility's corporate strategy of ensur-
ing stable funding for E)SM in a restructured, competitive in-
dustry. APS' DSM programs have been funded by the sur-
charge which has been levied at a flat rate of 0.057t/kWh
rather than a flat percentage as is the case with W\'VP's Distri-
bution Charge. The APS model also differs from WWVs in
that the charge provides for the recovery of lost revenues.
Renewables have also been funded by the surcharge in order
to meet Arizona Corporation Commission requirements. EESE
will reportedly be discontinued at year-end 1996 to streamline
administration and thereafter DSM will be funded through a
traditional rate-embedded mechanism. [R#18,19 J
APPLICATION TO A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
The price of power is unquestionably a, if not the, most im-
portant metric of value in the eyes of customers. While it is the
amount of the monthly bill, not the price of each kilowatt-
hour, that ought to be more important, the latter will likely be
of greater and greater importance as the electric utility industry
becomes more and more competitive. Distribution charges,
fortunately, provide a means for funding public purpose pro-
grams without affecting the competitive position of various
generators. Use of such charges enables utilities to pursue cus-
tomer-valued programs without suffering competitively. In the
future and akin to various charges itemized on telecommuni-
cations bills, such charges will likely appear as line items on
customers' bills so that the costs of both the power they pur -
chase, and the costs of transmission and distribution services
are readily transparent to consumers. (to date, however, this
sort of bill manipulation has not been necessary.) Inversely,
past funding mechanisms for DSM do not support viable
competitive postures. Embedded and hidden DSM power
costs, inflated by the accumulation of stranded regulatory as-
sets which earn shareholder returns, cause utilities' overall
rates to be noncompetitive as customers cannot easily identify
nor choose the costs they pay for various services.
A second related feature of distribution charges is that they
provide for a smooth transition into retail wheeling by attach-
ing the charge to distribution services, not power sales. In the
New Hampshire two-year pilot retail wheeling program, fund-
ing DSM has been separated from the market-driven portion
of electric costs. While customers will have a choice in their
cost of power from different suppliers and will thus carefully
scrutinize each option's cost per kilowatt-hour, all pilot partici-
© IRT Environment, Inc.
n
Transferability (continued)
pants will still be obligated to pay a set'distribution fees there.
This fee will fund DSM and public policy programs and will
also cover transmission and distribution costs (the costs of
wheeling power across PSNH lines) and partial recovery on
stranded assets for the host utility. [R#261
On April 24, 1996, FERC passed its landmark Order 888 which
mandates open access for wholesale electricity. Most investor-
owned utilities now support this framework for wholesale
open access as the groundwork for direct access in the retail
market. Among other things, the ruling includes the provision
that utilities must divulge the true costs of wheeling power
across their transmission and distribution systems, a cost that
will be levied as a surcharge in a direct access environment.
The ruling has specified protocols for determining the level of
these forms of distribution charges. Coupling these charges
with WWP's Distribution Charge may well become a highly
effective cost recovery means in a competitive utility market-
place.
On May 16, 1996 the New York State legislature ruled in favor
of full competition in the wholesale electricity market by 1997
and retail wheeling by 1998. To fund efficiency at stable levels
(approximately $100 million per year), the ruling specified that
utilities will be required to collect a distribution charge of ap-
proximately 1 miWkWh for DSM and 1 mill/kWh for research
and development. The charge will likely be non-bypassable
and will be applied to each utility's distribution system. A sec-
ond issue, the allocation of the distribution charge revenue,
has not yet been determined. [R#271
Coming full circle, Washington Water Power has recently won
approval of its proposal for direct access and competition. Ef -
fective July 1, 1996 WWP has opened its system up for limited
retail wheeling as a means of encouraging an open power
market for the Northwest. WWP's filing offers its thirty largest
customers the opportunity to choose their power suppliers for
up to one-third of their load, an equivalent of 37 aM\'V or 5%
of WWVs total load. The model includes a Direct Access and
Delivery Service (DADS) Tariff for WWVs distribution service.
The DADS Tariff accounts for transmission and distribution
services as well as ancillary services such as scheduling, bal-
ancing, and forwarding. The DADS Tariff does not provide
for DSM, however, since customers serviced by WWP's sys-
I
tem are already obliged to pay the Distribution Charge that is
the subject of this Profile. With the WUTC's approval of the
proposed DADS Tariff, W'vVP has added to its progressive
track record with implementing distribution charges, collecting
for both the costs of an innovative portfolio of DSM programs
as well as the rent it requires for the use of its transmission and
distribution systems.[ R#201
CONCLUSION
The industry's focus on distribution charges does not suggest
that efficiency cannot be carried out in the free market. In-
stead, this class of new funding mechanisms can complement
the transition to full use of profitable energy service compa-
nies. Most proactive investor-owned utilities are creating en-
ergy services divisions and/or unregulated subsidiaries which
will ultimately become profit centers. The market has already
demonstrated that it can support some programs; distribution
charge-funded programs can complement these efforts by fill-
ing in with enhanced energy services in market segments that
up to this time are not attractive to entrepreneurial energy ser-
vice companies.
Fundamentally, we as a society have learned that customers
value the environment in ways that may not yet be strictly con-
sidered economic. Utility customers - as WWVs customer
survey dearly found - value efficiency programs, renewable
energy, and social programs. Their willingness to pay for "the
right things - despite some of the lowest power rates in the
country - suggests the viability of the model. Akin to Working
Assets' positive experience in New Hampshire, where it is sell-
ing green power at a premium price, WWP has shown that the
market is ready to continue to support efficiency and green
power through these innovative funding mechanisms.
By explicitly stating the costs of its efficiency programs through
its model Distribution Charge, WWP has ably demonstrated it
has the ability to turn the adverse aspects of DSM - complete
with concerns about cross subsidies, free ridership, and rate
impacts - into an attractive customer service responding to
customer needs. WWP has paved the way for others to imple-
ment similar up-front and transparent funding mechanisms,
while suggesting a portfolio of programs that clearly illustrates
the evolution of DSM as its matures in the marketplace.
@ IRT Environment, Inc.
S
.
References
1. Bruce Folsom, Rates and Tariffs Administration, Wash- 16. "WUTC Approves Electric Energy Efficiency Program
ington Water Power, personal communication, January - Changes" Washington Water Power press release, De-
July 1996. cember 16, 1996.
2.Bill Johnson, Demand-Side Research Analyst, Washing-
ton Water Power, personal communication, January -
July 1996.
3."1994 Annual Report,' Washington Water Power Com-
pany, March 1995.
4."Tariff WN-U-26, Electric Service; Tariff WN-U-27, Natu-
ral Gas Services,' Washington Water Power filing to the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,
October 25, 1994.
5.Jim Nybo, Conservation Analyst, Resource Division,
Northwest Power Planning Council, Washington Water
Power, personal communication, March - July 1996.
17."IPUC Approves Funding for WWP Efficiency Programs,'
Washington Water Power press release, March 10, 1995.
18.'Distribution Benefits Charges: Early Experiences and Is-
sues," Nicholas Lenssen, E Source, January 1996.
19.Ned Lesnick, Senior DSM Planner, Arizona Public Ser-
vice, personal communication, May 1996.
20."Washington Water Power Initiates New Open Access
Tariff Experiment,' Washington Water Power press re-
lease, May 6, 1996.
21.Merilee Updike, Marketing Analyst, Washington Water
Power, personal communication, May 1996.
6.Deborah Stephens, Washington Utilities and Transpor- 22. The Results Center, "Profile #79: Oslo, Norway Corn-

tation Commission, personal communication, March - prehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency,' IRT Environ-
July 1996. ment, 1994.
7."Docket UE-941375 and UE-941377,' Washington Utili- 23. "Washington Water Power, Sierra Pacific Agree to Corn-

ties and Transportation Commission recommendations bination: See Major Cost Savings, More Competitive Po-

to Washington Water Power's filing, December 14, 1994. sition,' Washington Water Power press release, June 28,
1994.
8.Letter of understanding to Steve McLellen, Secretary,
WUTC from Thomas Dukich, Manager, Rates and Tar-
iffs Administration, Washington Water Power, Decem-
ber 12, 1994.
9.Settlement Stipulation, Case #WWP-E-94-10 and WWP-
G-94-5, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, February 7,
1995.
10."WWP Electric DSM Program Summary Through March
1996,' April 24, 1996.
11."WWP Gas DSM Program Summary Through March
1996,' April 24, 1996.
12."Washington Water Power's Demand-Side Manage-
ment Tariff Rider,' Washington Water Power press re-
lease, January 1996.
13."DSM History, Results, Accounting Treatment, and
Cost-Effectiveness Tests," Washington Water Power,
January 26, 1995.
14.Roger Curtis, Energy Services Manager, Washington
Water Power, personal communication, July 1996.
15."W'vVP Files Proposed Changes to Energy-Efficiency Pro-
grams,' Washington Water Power press release, Octo-
ber 26, 1994.
24."Annual Report 1994,' Sierra Pacific Resources, April
1995.
25.The Results Center, "Profile #80: Copenhagen, Denmark
Comprehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency,' IRT Envi-
ronment, 1994.
26.George McCluskey, Director of Restructuring Division,
New Hampshire Public Service Commission, personal
communication, May 1996.
27.Ashok Gupta, Senior Energy Economist, National Re-
sources Defense Council, personal communication,
May - June 1996.
28."Response to (WLJTC's) Notice of Inquiry: Examining
Regulation of Electric Utilities in the Face of Change in
the Electric Industry,' Washington Water Power, Febru-
ary 17, 1995.
29."After Two Years, Utility Ends Merger Plan,' New York
Times, July 2, 1996.
30.Ralph Cavanagh, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council, personal communication, July 1996.
31.David Wooley, Director, Pace Energy Project, personal
communication, July 1996.
27
S .
1.NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM, Small C/I Program
2.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, Low Income Relamping
3.BuRuNc'roN EI.Ecnuc DEPARTMENT, Smartlight
4.PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, Customized Electric Rebates
5.O&&cu (IowA) MUNICIPAL UT1IIW, Comprehensive DSM Program
6.NORTHEAST UnLrriES Energy Conscious Construction
7.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Super Good Cents
8.CONSOLIDATED EDISON, Enlightened Energy
9.CALIFORNIA ENERGY COALITION, Energy Cooperatives
10.BRmSH COLUMBIA HYDRO, Power Smart Refrigerator Buy-Back Pilot
11.CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, ENERGY STAR RATING
12.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Hood River Conservation Project
13.SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL Um.rw DISTRICT, Commercial Lighting Installation
14.PACIFIC GAS & Ewnta Showerhead Program
15.UNITED ILLUMINATING, Homeworks
16.ONTARIO HYDRO, Espanola Power Savers Project
17.NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY, High Efficiency Lighting Program
18.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Energy Savings Plan
19.CENTRAL MAINE POWER, Operation Llghtswitch
20.SimE CITY LIGlrr, Low Income Electric Program
21.NORTHEAST UTILITIES, Lighting Catalog Program
22.WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC, Neighborhood Program
23.BOSTON EDISON, Residential Efficient Lighting Program
24.WISCONSIN ELECTRIC, Appliance Turn-In Program
25.PACIFiC GAS & ELEcTIUC, Retrofit Program
26.ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES CAN, R-2000
27.SEATTLE CITY Ucin' Lighting Design Lab
28.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, Energy Management Hardware Rebates
29.WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, Solar DSM
30.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Manufactured Housing Acquisition
31.BOSTON EDISON, Small Commercial and Industrial Program
32.WISCONSIN ELECTRIC, Smart Money for Business
33.PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, Commercial New Construction
34.NORTHEAST UThJIIES Energy Action Program
35.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Green Lights
36.NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM, Residential Electric Space Heat
37.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Energy Smart Design
38.BRESSH COLUMBIA HYDRO, Power Smart High-Efficiency Motors Program
39.BURLINGTON ELEcTIuC DEPARTMENT, Heat Exchange
40.WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, Pump Testing and Irrigation Efficiency
41.NIAGARA MOHAWK, High Efficiency Motors and Drives
42.TAUNTON MUNICIPAL LIGHTING PLANT, Smartlight and Lightwaves
43.MIDWEST RESOURCES, Rock Valley Energy Efficiency Research Project
44.WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION, Wise Buys Irrigation Program
45.WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY OFFICE, MotorMaster
46.PACIFICORP, Large Commercial Energy FinAnswer
47.ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, Alaska Craftsman Home Program
48.GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER, Small Commercial & Industrial Retrofit Program
49.WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY OFFICE, Energy Savings for Nonprofits
50.UNITED ILLUMINATiNG, Energy Blueprint
51.Duct Testing and Repair Programs
52.TU ELECTRIC, Thermal Cool Storage
53.SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC, Commercial Lighting Retrofit
54.FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, Residential Load Management
55.PoRTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC, Energy Resource Center
56.UNTIED POWER ASSOCIATION, Off-Peak Program
57.RENSSElAER POLYTECHNIC INSTSTJFE, Lighting Research Center
58.BUCKEYE POWER, Residential Load Control
59.PuBLIc SERVICE OF Ouq.11oMA, Ground Source Heat Pump Research Project
60.CENTRAL MAINE Powrau, Pilot Efficiency Buy.Back Program
61.OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANY, House Therapy and Appliance Aid
62.PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, DSM Bidding Programs
63.UNTIED IWJMINAT1NG, Energy Opportunities
64.CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, Energy Partnership Program
65.NORTHERN STATES POWER, High Efficiency Motors and Drives
66.SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Solar Domestic Water Heating
67.PSI ENERGY, Smart Saver Homes
68.PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC, Energy Smarts for Schools
69.NIAGARA MoHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Commercial/Industrial Lighting
70.GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER, Equipment Replacement and Remodelling
71.TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES, Fort Lewis Electric Efficiency Retrofit
72.ECOGROUP, In Concert With The Environment
73.IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Energy Bank Program
74.PUGET POWER, Commercial/Industrial Energy Management
75.PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, Direct Assistance
76.LEICESTER, ENGLAND, Comprehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency
77.HANNOVER, GERMANY, Comprehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency
78.SAARBROCXEN, GERMANY, Comprehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency
79.OSLO, NORWAY, Comprehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency
80.COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, Comprehensive Municipal Energy Efficiency
81.PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, Model Energy Communities Program
82.ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER, Destination Conservation
83.SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Residential Peak Corps
84.SOIJITIERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, Customer Technology Application Center
85.BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, WaterWise
86.WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY OFFICE, Energy Ideas Clearinghouse
87.CITY OF PALO ALTO, Point of Purchase Pilot CFL Program
88.BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO, Process Improvements Program
89.WASHINGTON (VT) ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Direct Install Program
90.ENERGY RATED HOMES OF AMERICA, Uniform Energy Rating System
91.SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILrTY DISTRICT, Comprehensive DSM
92.NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM, Design 2000
93.MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIc, Residential lighting Program
94.Cm' OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, Gas Technologies Program
95.Cny OF AUSTR'I, TEXAS, Comprehensive DSM
96.PUBLIC SERVICE CONSERVATION RESOURCES, PSE&G Standard Offer Program
97.MiNNEAPOLIS CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, Multi-family retrofit
98.BURLINGTON ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT, Comprehensive DSM
99.WAVERLY (IA) LIGHT AND POWER, Comprehensive DSM
100.EUA COGENE)ç U.S. Department of Energy's Forrestal Building Retrofit
101.STATE OF TEXAS, LoanSTAR
102.CORNWALL, ONTARIO, Energy Efficiency Team
103.SEATTLE CITY LIGHT, Comprehensive Municipal DSM
104.PoRTLAND ENERGY OFFICE, Multi family Energy Savings Program
105.PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC, PG&E Energy Center
106.Super Efficient Refrigerator Program
107.ALBERTA POWER LIMITED, Jasper Energy Efficiency Project
108.NUTEK, Swedish Refrigerator Procurement
109.PHIADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT, Community Assistance Program
110.SIERRA PACIFIC POWER, Peak Performance Program
111.SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, SOLAR PH(YIOVOLTAICS
112.NEBRASKA ENERGY OFFICE, Dollar and Energy Saving Loan Program
113.SOUTHERN CALIFoRNIA EDISON, CFB Manufacturer's Rebate Program
114.SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, Save Energy Campaign
115.CITY OF AsIND, Comprehensive Conservation Programs
116.BOSTON EDISON, Large Commercial and Industrial Retrofit
117.THE PHILIPPINES, Residential AirCon Standards and Labeling
118.CITY OF PHOENDç Energy Management/Capital Reinvestment Plan
119.EI.ECIRICITE DE FRANCE, OperatiolE LBC
120.SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Geo.Lease
121.CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, Green Builder Program
122.NIAGARA M0NAwK POWER CORPORATION, Subscriptive Service
123.DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Smart Comfort
124.SUNY, BUFFALO, Comprehensive Energy and Resource Management
125.MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MAIMAND, Resource Conservation Program
126.WASHINGTON WATER POWER, Dirt. Charge & Market Transformation Progs.
. .
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED GAS AND
ELECTRIC TARIFFS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS
ATTACHMENT I
PROPOSED 1997-1999 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
WWP PETITION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARIFF REVISIONS
. .
Measurement and Evaluation
1997 through 1999
The objective of the M&E effort for 1997 through 1999 is to provide
the Information necessary to support decision-making concerning
the program status and to fine-tune the delivery of the program
Additionally, when possible the M&E program will be managed to add
the additional customer satisfaction benefits and to further add
savings to the programs by performing post-project reviews and
recommendations
Although the type of M&E done will vary substantially for across the
menu of programs being proposed in this filing, all programs will
provide for customer feedback, vital descriptive statistics will be
collected and an internal auditing review of claimed savings and
funding of projects
The M&E and implementation of these programs will be in separate
and distinct departments Those responsible for M&E will not be
directly incentivized on implementation goals in order to maintain
the independence and impartiality of their results.
In general, our approach to M&E will be to utilize in-house labor
whenever possible and to integrate the M&E effort into the
implementation of the program
All information acquired through the M&E program will be presented
to the program manager of each program, the area coordinator of
DSM implementation, DSM analyst(s) and those responsible for
regulatory issues concering the program.
Additional program-by-program Intentions for the completion of
M&E needs are as follo's
Programs
Testing, Adjusting & Balancing, Residential Weatherization, LI Res
Energy Efficiency, LI Res. Weatherization, Furnace Filter Rebate,
Duct Sealing Program, LI Res. Weatherizat ion
Measurement and Evaluation ADDroa
.

.
These programs, a mixture of non-incentive and direct service
provision, have savings which are a small percentage of overall
billed energy use and/or end-use energy use. Additionally, there are
difficulties with controlling for changes in household, change in
home energy usage patterns and imperfections In weather
adjustments that overwhelm the programmic energy savings
An engineering estimation of energy savings has been made in order
- to estimate savings attributable to the program. These estimates
have been presented as part of the details of each program
The measurement and evaluation effort for these programs will
consist of internal auditing, verification of installation, collection
of vital descriptive statistics concerning each program, and a
persistance / customer satisfaction survey of completed jobs.
Engineering estimates will be refined, where possible, and used to
periodically reevaluate program viability. All measurement and
evaluation results will be provided to the program manager and area
coordinator as part of a program delivery continuous improvement
process.
Programs:
Energy Efficiency Clearinghouse, Tool Lending, Natural Gas
Awareness, Education, Energy Efficient Catalog, Comm Presc Rebate
Pgm. - Audits, Trade Ally
Measurement & Evaluation ADoroach:
The savings resulting from these non-incentive programs are
difficult to measure in that the intention of the program is to
inform, lower transaction costs or to educate the customer
concerning energy efficiency options While it is Impossible to
accurately and cost-effectively assess the impact that these
programs have had on the adoption of the very wide range of energy
efficiency equipment and behaviors that are involved, it is very
useful to the efficient management of the program to track certain
descriptive statistics and to understand how the targetted
customers are, or are not, using the information.
To these ends, the measurement and evaluation program will focus
strongly on a collecting meaningful and usable descriptive
statistics. These statistics may be, for example, the number of
different customers who have logged onto the WWP website to
. 0
obtain information on the financing of energy efficient projects, the
number of new/existing homes installing natural gas equipment or
the customers who have borrowed WWP-owned equipment to
measure lighting runtimes in their facility.
Over time, these descriptive statistics will provide Insights into
how these programs are being used by our customers Through
personal customer Interactions, as part of the implementation of the
program or through a formalized M&E effort, we can further refine
program delivery and periodically reevaluate program viability.
Program
Resource Conservation Mgr.
Measurement and Evaluation Approach :
The impact measurement of this program is an inherent part of the
program itself. Resource savings attributable to the RCM is tracked
and those savings reduce the actual utility funding of the RCM
position.
The M&E program will provide a further breakout of programmic
savings into electric, natural gas, water, sewer and solid waste
categories. Claimed savings are verified by both WWP and the
participating customer.
Program:
Man. Home Acquisition
Measurement and Evaluation Aooroach:
The measurement of completed and sited homes under this program
Is an Integral and welfrestablished part of the program.
Furthermore, the savings per home has been widely reviewed and
stipulated to as part of WWPS involvement In the program.
Consequently, the only M&E effort necessary on this program is to
provide descriptive statistics of the number of homes sited within
WWPs service territory and funded under this program.
Program:
New Technologies, Regional Energy Eff. Program
Measurement and Evaluation ADDroach:
The programs are anticipated to change and develop over the three
year filing period in unanticipatable ways. Given that it is
Impossible to determine exactly what regional programs or new
technologies that WWP will impact over the program life, we can
only assert that we will attempt to collect whatever impact,
descriptive or customer satisfaction Information that is deemed
necessary and relevant to the efficient management of the program.
Program:
Comm./Ind. Site Specific Pgm
Measurement and Evaluation Approach:
The M&E effort for the site-specific program will continue to be a
customized review of a sample of projects This is considered
necessary due to the extremely heterogenous nature of the projects
undertaken by this program.
e program will continue to make strong attempts to enhance
LULOIlItI saLisiaMon dilU energy savinp ii viii ..n vjci.s by ui
use of post-project audits, analysis and customer recommendations.
The M&E findings will be part of periodic continuous improvement
efforts aimed at improving program delivery.
As stated in the review of WWPs 1995-'96 M&E program for site-
specific projects, we have identified defiencies in the M&E process
for this program that we hope to remedy prior to the implementation
of our 1997 site-specific program Most of these corrective actions
Involve changing goal-measurement criteria and a renewed
commitment to follow through on projects on a timely basis
The DSM submetering protocols included in the review of the
historical 1995-96 M&E effort will continue to be used in the
future Modifications will be made to these protocols as necessary
to meet the needs of the program
Program
Comm. Presc. Rebate Pgm. - Lighting, Comm. Presc. Rebate Pgm. -
Fuel Switching, C/I Site-Specific Presc. Rebates (HVAC, dry kiln),
I
.
Sm. Comm. Presc. Lighting Retrofit Pgm., Sm. Comm. Presc. Fuel
Switching Pgm.
Measurement and Evaluation Approach :
These incentive programs impact, relative to the C/I Site-Specific
program, a large number of customers for less energy impact per
customer. It Is Infeasible and cost-ineffective to undertake the
indepth review of a large sample of the projects that we have
committed to under our Site-Specific program.
These programs are prescriptive because the end-uses that they
impact are fairly homogenous In the end-use equipment effected and
the way that it is used Consequently, a relatively small sample of
completed projects of each program will be reviewed to assess
characteristics such as energy savings, persistance, run-time, cost
and/or customer satisfaction.
These results will be used to modify the management of the
program, future savings claimed under the program, incentive
structure, qualifying customers and other program criteria
0
16
Service List
I
Doug Kilpatrick
Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission
P0 BOX 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250
Deborah Stephens
Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission
P0 BOX 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250
Wayne Hart
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Utilities Section
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Jim Lazar
Consultant to Public Counsel
1063 Capitol Way S., #202
Olympia, WA 98501
Liz Klumpp
Washington State Energy Office
809 Legion Way SE
P0 BOX 41365
Olympia, WA 98504-3165
Sara Patton
Northwest Conservation Act Coalition
217 Pine Street, Ste 1020
Seattle, WA 98101
Mary Ann Hutton
Northwest Industrial Gas Users
999 NE Worden Hill Road
Dundee, OR 97115-9147
Mert Lott
Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission
P0 BOX 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250
Frank Maglietti
Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission
P0 BOX 47250
Olympia, WA 98504-7250
Rob Manifold
Office of the Attorney General
Public Counsel Section
900 Fourth Avenue, Ste 2000
Seattle, WA 98264-1012
Don Andre'
Spokane Neighborhood Action
Programs
East 2116 First
Spokane, WA 99202
Jim Nybo
Northwest Power Planning
Counsel
851 SW 6th Ave, Ste 1020
Portland, OR 97204
Nicole Moles
Davis Wright Tremaine
1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue
2300 First Interstate Bank Twr
Portland, OR 97201
I