20181116Application.pdf

Avista Corp.
141 I East Mission P.O. Box3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone]
Toll Free 800-727-9170
Kv n' &'18 - 08
r*.)
ffi
ftorry
DS
=, tr.ffrlo
CNNovember 15,2018
Diane Hanian, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Statehouse Mail
W . 472 Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
Re: Avista Corporation Application for a Determination of 2014-2017 Natural Gas Energy
Efficiency Expenses as Prudently Incurred
Dear Ms. Hanian:
Enclosed for filing with the Commission is an original and seven (7) copies of Avista
Corporation's, dba Avista Utilities ("Avista or the Company"), Application requesting
determination of the Company's natural gas energy efficiency expenditures from January 1,2014
through December 31,2017 as prudently incurred. Also included in this filing are Exhibit Nos. 1-
3 in support of the Application, containing Avista's 2016 Annual Conservation Report,20l7
Annual Conservation Report, and the Company's third-party Impact Evaluation Report of its
natural gas energy efficiency programs for 2016-2017.
If you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact Dan Johnson, Director of Energy
Effi ciency, at (5 09) 49 5 -2807 or dan j ohnson@av istacom.com.
Sincerely
/y{LU,Ldfr, Ge-na,L{
Linda Gervais
Senior Manager, Regulatory Policy
Avista Utilities
509-495-4975
I inda. gervai [e-mail]
Enclosures
.#vtsra i
iirfr ilvED
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
DAV]D J. MEYER
V]CE PRESIDENT AND CH]EF COUNStrL FOR
REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFEAIRS
AV]STA CORPORATION
1411 E. MISSION AVENUE
P.O. BOX 3127
SPOKANE, WASHTNGTON 99220
PHONE: (509) 495*4316
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
AVISTA CORPORAT]ON FOR A
DETERMINATION OF 20\4_2OI'7 NATURAL
GAS ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPENSES AS
PRUDENTLY INCURRED
?+llFiil'i l5 AI,l 9:5!
BEFORE THE IDAIIO PTJBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
CASE NO. AVU-G-18-
APPI]CATION OF
AVTSTA CORPORATION
18
19 I. INTRODUCTTON
20 Avista Corporation, doing business as Avista Utifities
2l (hereinafter Avista or Company), at 1411 East Mission
22 Avenue, Spokane, Washington, respectfully requests that the
23 Commission issue a finding that Avista's natural- gas energy
24 efficiency expenditures from January l, 201"4 through
25 December 31, 2011 in the amount of $2,899,525 as prudently
26 incurred.
27 The Company requests that
28 under the Commission's Modified
this filing be processed
Procedure rules through the
29 use of written comments.
1
Application of Avista Corporation
1
2
Communications in reference to thls Application
should be addressed to:
David ,J. Meyer, Esq.
Vice President and Chief Counsel for
Regulatory & Governmental Affairs
Avista Corporation
P. O. Box 312'7
MSC-2 7
14Ll E. Mission Ave
Spokane, WA 99220-3121
Phone: [phone]
David . MeyerGavi stacorp . com
Linda M. Gervais
Senior Manager, Regulatory Polj-cy
Avista Utilities
P.O. Box 3121
MSC.2 7
1,411 E. Mission Ave
Spokane, WA 99220-3721Phone: [phone]
Llnda . Gervais G avi stacorp . com
The Company has included the following attachments in
support of this filing, which are also referenced below:
a) Exhiblt No. 1 - fdaho 2A16-2017 Natural Gas
Impact Evaluation
b) Exhibit No. 2 - Avista 2017 ldaho Annual
Conservation Report
c) Exhibit No. 3 - Avista 2076 Idaho Annual
Conservation Report
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3l
32
2
Application of Avista Corporation
II. BACKGROT'ND
2 The Energy Efficiency tariff ri-der, which is funded
3 through the Electric and Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Rider
4 Adjustments ("Schedule 91" and "schedule 79L" respectively)
5 consist of energy efficiency options for residential, non-
6 residential and low-income customer segments. The Company's
7 natural gas Energy Efficiency Programs (Programs) are
8 offered through traditional prescriptive channefs along with
9 site-specific projects and upstream buy down programs. Each
10 program in the Company's natural gas Energy Efficiency
l1 portfolio is designed to meet cost-effectiveness
12 requirements and is evaluated by a third-party evaluator.
13 fn 2A12, due to the changing natural gas supply
14 landscape and subsequent lower prices that resulted in the
l5 decline of natural gas avoided costs, the Commissi-on
16 approved the Company's requested suspensi-on of its natural
17 gas programs
18 AVU-G-12-06
i9 schedul-e 191
in Order No. 32650, Docket Nos. AVU-G-12-03 and
lconsoJ-idated). Therefore, Avista's Idaho
was reduced to $0.00 per therm for every rate
20 class due to difficulty in achieving a meaningful cost-
to the Net Tota]21 effective natural- gas portfolio according
22 Resource Cost (TRC) cost-effectiveness test.
1
3Application of Avista Corporation
I
2
J
The Company has remained committed to a continual- re-
eval-uat j-on of the prospects f or the natura} gas Energy
Efficiency portfolio.During each annual busj-ness planning
of the viability of offering a natural4 cycIe, an assessment
gas portfolio is completed.
In 2015, Avista began its evaluati-on of the composltion
and components of natural gas avoided costs and compared
them with other regional
Commission
and national utilities. After
discussions with
5
6
7
8
9 Staff and
10 Efficiency Advisory Group ("Advisory
1l Commi-ssion guidance emphasizing the
12 Cost Test (UCT), Avista submitted an
15 No. 33444 0f Docket No. AVU-G-15-03,
16 reinstate its Natural Gas Energy
17 effective the 2016 program year1.
18
the Company's Energy
Group"), along with
value of the Utility
Application to resume
allowing Avista to
Efficiency program
13 its Natural Gas Energy Efficiency programs on October 26,
14 2015. The Commission granted the Company's request in Order
20
19 rII. NATTIR,AT GAS PROGRAM EXPEIIDITURES
The Company requests Commission determination that the
2l Energy Efficiency expenditures totaling $2,899 ,525 for
1 Because of the absence Curing 2074-2075t no savings
during these years.
reported
4
Application of Avista Corporation
were
I Idaho's natural gas Energy Efficiency programs were prudent
2 and in the public interest. Of the total amount spent,
3 $1,567,'701 , or 542 of total expenditures were paid out to
4 customers in direct incentives.2 This percentage does not
5 i-nclude additional benefits such as technical analyses
6 provided to customers by the Company's Energy Efficiency
7 engineering staff or regional market transformation efforts
8 through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA).
9 The Company reports the Schedule 191- balance on a
l0 monthly basis to its stakeholder group which includes members
ll from the Idaho Public Utili-ty Commission. At December 31,
12 2A13, the Idaho natural gas Energy Efficiency program had an
13 overfunded endi ng balance of $6'14,059. At December 3L, 2011 ,
14 the Idaho naturaf
l5 overfunded
16
l7
gas Energy Efficiency program
bal-ance of $180,889. The decrease
reflects costs incurred by the
had an
in the
20
overfunded
Efficiency
collections
ending
balance Energy
program of $2,899,525 and tariff schedul-e 191
18 of $2,406,355. Tabl-e No. 1 below illustrates the
19 balances on a monthly bas j-s.
2 $161,588 in incentives were paid to customers in 2015 and $779,871 in
2Q1'7. During 2074, a total of $20,248 of additional incentives were paid
to customers. These incentives paid 1n 201,4 are due to the 90-day tlme
period customers are al-Iowed to submit to Avj-sta an application rebate
form alcng wi,th lnvoices and other documentation once a project is
complete.
5
Application of Avista Corporation
I rable No. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
t3
14
15
t6
t7
l8
19
20
21
22
23
Accounting
Period
Beginuiug
Balance Expcnditures
Tariff
Collectionsl
Ending
Balance
Jan- 2011 (674,059)61,760 $t2.298)
Feb. 1014 (61r.298)(52.722\(665,020)
N{ar.2014 (665.020)I1.564 (653,455)
Apr l014 (653.455)518 (652.937)
Mav 2014 (65r,937)5.426 (647.51 l)
June 101,1 (61i.51l)8,i87 (638,i24)
Julv l014 (638.721)7,991 (630.727)
Aus. 2014 (630.727)44 (630,683)
Sep.1014 (630.683)l0 (630.6i2)
Oct 2014 rc30-612\636.2881 5.615
Nov.101,1 5"615 +.+72 10 088
Dec 2014 10,088 l0 088
Jan. ?015 10.088 2.t63 12.251
Feb.2015 10.088 12.t51
Mar.l015 12,2i l 12.70i 24.955
Apr.2015 24.955 12.705 37-660
\,lav 2015 24.955 37_660
June 2015 31,6$0 866 38.526
Julv 2015 38.526 5.736 +1.262
Aue. 2015 14.26?(3.145)11.117
Sep.2015 41,1 l7 (:,67-l)38.1J1
Oct.20l5 3 8.444 2.937 4l-381
Nov.2015 3 8.444 ,lt.381
Dec. 2015 4l.3 8l 19.3 87 60.i68
Jaa. 1016 60 768 19,554 (105.186)(24,863)
Feb.2016 (24.863)50,592 (16i.745)il16.016)
Mar.2016 036.0r6)203.911 (130.668)rc2^772)
Apr.2016 $2.172)63,261 (97,047)(96,55e)
Mav 2016 (96.559)54.530 (51.260)(93.288)
June 2016 (93.288)86.,170 (40.707)(47.526)
Julv 2016 (47.526)100.958 (33.280)20. I 53
Aug.2016 20,153 76_855 (29.322)67.686
Sep. 2016 67.686 71.694 (32.057)107"323
Oct. 2016 107.323 I14.496 (s2.826)168.993
I Naiurai Gas Energy Efficiency progran ![as suepe:rded in 2014 and 2015.{Includes a !5301582.83 transier ouE of the ldaho GnB Energy Efficiency
prtrgram lhrouqh the 2014 ldaho Esrnings Tesr p-djustxrent,
6
Appllcatlon of Avista Corporation
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nov.2016 168,993 78,529 (92,795\154,727
Dec.20l6 154,727 108,378 (186,192)76,973
lan.2017 76,973 124,253 (274,432)(73.267)
Feb.2017 (73,267)60,908 (215.277',)(227.63s)
Mar.2017 (227,635)147,098 (173,262)(2s3,799)
Apr.2017 (2s3.799)47,680 (t23,528)(329,647)
Ill4ay 2017 (329,647)71,827 (86,1 l0)(343,930)
June 2017 (343,930)108,112 (46,110)(281,e28)
July 2017 (281,928)51,995 (33,280)(263,213)
Alue.2017 (263.213\65,967 (28,035)(225,281)
Sep.20l7 (225,281\102,194 (29,779\(152,867)
Oct.2017 (152,867)75,904 (63,912)(140,875)
Nov.20l7 (140,875)105,1 5 1 fi30.428\(166,152)
Dec.2017 (t66,152\1,74,382 (189,120)(180,889)
IV.ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS ATID COST EFE:ECTIVENESS
From January L, 20L6 through December 31, 2077, the
Company achleved 535,449 therms of savinqs on a gross basis.3
The below table details the energy savings by residential,
non-residentiaL and l-ow-income sectors which make up the
Company's natural gas Energy Efficiency portfolio-
Sab1e No. 2
Program Sector
2075-2011 GrossVerified Savings
(therms )
Residential 424,908
Nonresidential 7AB ,254
Low fncome 2,281
Total Portfolio 535,449
3 Conslsting of 229,941 therm savings from 2Ql6 Energy Efficiency
programs and 305,508 therm savings from 2017 Energy Efficiency programs.
Please note that Table 1--2 of the ldaho 2416-20L7 Natural Gas fmpact
Evaluation shows 201.7 gross verified savings of 305,545. This number
contains a small rounding error of 36 therms and should be stated as
305, 508 therms.
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
7
Application of Avista Corporation
I Avista judges t.he effectiveness of the Energy
2 tfftciency portfolio based upon a number of metrics with the
3 most commonly applied metrics being the UCT.4 UCT is a
4 benefit-to-cost test from the utility perspective including
5 incentives and excluding net costs and non-energy benefits
6 of participants related to energy efficiency services.
7 For 2016, the overall Energy Efficiency portfolio
8 achieved a UCT ratio of 1.45 based on gross reported savings.
9 For 20L7, the overall Energy Efficiency portfolio achieved
10 a UCT rati-o of 2.35 based on gross verified savings. The
1l cost-effectiveness metrics are included in Table No. 3
12 below.
13 Tarrle No. 3
t4 Cost-Effectiveness Test 20L6s 20L1
Utility Cost Test (UCT)L.45 2.35
15
16
17 V.ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS
t8 The Company's energy efficiency targets are established
1n the process of developing the Natural Gas Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). The targets derived through the
19
a Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.5 2076 cost effectiveness was based on Company reported savings values
and not on evaluated savings as Ln 20t"7. Please see Exhi-bit No . 2 for
the 2017 Annual- Report and Exhibit No. 3 for the 2016 Annual Report.
20
a
Application of Avista Corporation
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
resource
program
business
planning efforts provlde a starting point for
planning which is accomplished through the annual
planning process where program offerings are
on
Efficlency
established
optimized for the Company's service territory based
current economic and market conditions.
The results of Avista's natural gas Energy
programs exceeded the 2016 and
as part of this IRP process, as
Idaho Enerqy Efflciency savings
2077 IRP targets
shown in Table No. 4 below.
for 2016 were 229,941 therms
10 and savings for 2017 were 305,508 therms. This represents
1l 1,122 of the Company's two-year
for this perlod.
Tab].e No. 4
IRP target of 317,640 therms
t2
13
14
15
t6
l7
18 Avista's fdaho 2076-2017 Natural Gas Impact Eval-uation
VI . PROGRAI.I EVAIUATION
Nexant performed independent, or "third-party'r impact
and process evaluatj-on on Avista's Energy Efficiency
19 has been included in Exhibit No. 1 to support these figures.
20
2t
22
23
9
Time Period of
Reported Savings
Local- Evafuated
therm SavJ-ngs
IRP Target Percent
Achieved
20r6 229,947 1-14,000 2022
201,7 305, 508 791,640 155 %
20\6-20]-7 535, 449 311,640 llzrb
Appli-cation of Avista Corporation
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
programs for the 20L6-77 period. The primary goal of the
impact evafuation is to provide an accurate sunrmary of the
gross energy and demand savings attributabl-e to Avista's
Energy Efficiency portfol-io. The main purpose of a process
evaluation is to identify any improvements needed at the
portfolio Ievel to increase program effectiveness and
efficiency.
Nexant concluded that Avista's fdaho natural- gas Energy
Efficiency programs achieved 535,449 therms in 2016-17 cost-
effectively and that Avista's 2076-2077 energy efficiency
programs addressed all impact and process evaluation needs
in accordance with industry and regulatory standards.5
VII. CONCI.USION
V{HEREFORE, Avista respectfully requests the
Commission issue its Order designatlng Avista's total
Energy Efficiency expenditures of $2,899,525 for the
program years 201,4-2017 as prudently incurred, with this
Application being processed under Modified Procedure
through the use of written comments.
5 See Exhibit No. 1 for the complete fdaho 2016-20L"7 Natural Gas Impact
Evaluation
t0
t2
l1
t3
t4
15
l6
t7
l8
t9
20
Application of Avista Corporation
10
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
Dated at Spokane,washinsron rhis l* o^, ot N*J,--20]-8.
AVISTA CORPORATION
By:c7/
1
oav{a 6. Meyer
Vice President and Chief Counsel for
Regulatory and Governmental Affairs
Application of Avj-sta Corporation
1- l_
Exhibit No. 1:
2016-2017 Natural Gas lmpact Evaluation
Exhibit No. 1: 2015-2017 NaturalGas lmpact Evaluation
oNesranr
Reimagine tomorrow
N
I mpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural
Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency
Programs
REPORT
a
fl
")3
L.\
..i.
a\ls {l
7',
E
a&l "
3rfI(,.t
"t
';6
,
I
a{,
t
,' I
... ... if
a a. ,
't' *
I
rlaI
t I a
a
a
t
a
a I\
I
)(,
t
E
,
t
a
l. I
I
I,/
I1
/Z)I a
Submitted to Avista Utilities
IVlay 16,2018
Principal Authors:
Lynn Roy, Mary-Hall Johnson, Patrick Burns, Wyley Hodgson,
Cherlyn Seruto, Greg Sidorov, Aimee Savage, Eric Bell; Nexant,
lnc.
Contents
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Evaluation Methodology and Activities
1.2 Summary of lmpact Evaluation Results
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations..
1.3.1 Nonresidential Programs ......
1.3.2 Residential Programs - including Low 1ncome..............
2 lntroduction.......
1
1
2
7
7
8
2.1 Purpose of Evaluation...........
2.2 Program Summary
2.2.1 Nonresidential..............
2.2.1.7 Sife Specific ......
10
10
10
10
2.2.1.2 EnergySmart Grocer
2.2.1.3 Food Seryice Equipment................
2.2.1.4 Commercial lnsulation
2.2.1.5 Natural Gas Commercial HVAC.......
2.2.2 Small Business
2.2.3 Residential... ,, ,, , ....
2.2.3.1 HVAC Program
2.2.3.2 Water Heat.........
2.2.3.3 ENERGY SIAR@Homes..........
2.2.3.4 Fuel Efficiency Program .............
2.2.3.5 Residential Lighting..
2.2.3.6 Shell Program ..........
2.2.3.7 Home Energy Reports....
2.2.3.8 Low 1ncome...............
Program Participation Summary...........
2.4 Evaluation Goals and Objectives
2.3
O N€lIOnT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
22
3 lmpact Evaluation Methodology.....
3.1 Understanding the Program Context...
3.2 Designing the Sample.............
3.3 Database Review
3.4 Verifying the Sample - Gross Verified Savings
3.4.1 Document Audit
3.4.2 Telephone Survey......
3.4.3 Onsite Measurement and Verification
3.4.4 Billing Analysis
3.4.4.1 Comparison Group Selection
3.4.4.2 Ex Post Estimation Method....
3.4.4.3 Low lncome Pre/Post Billing Ex Post Estimation Method......
4 Nonresidential lmpact Evaluation
Overview
Energy Smart Grocer
4.2.1 Overview..
4.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
4.2.3 Methodology. .. . ....
4.2.3.1 Sampling Approach...............
4.2.3.2 Document Audits.......
4.2.3.3 Field lnspections
4.2.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods
4.2.4 Findings and Recommendations .......
Commercial lnsulation ...........
4.3.1 Overview..
4.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
4.3.3 Methodology... .... .
4.3.3.1 Sampling Approach
4.3.3.2 Document Audits....
4.3.3.3 Field lnspections....
4.3.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods
4.3.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
4.4 Natural Gas HVAC
4.4.1 Overview..
4.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Study
L1 NOOfiT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
24
24
24
27
27
28
28
28
30
30
32
33
4.1
4.2
4.3
36
36
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
44
44
44
44
ii
4.4.3 Methodology.
4.4.3.1 Sampling........... ..
4.4.3.2 Document Audits...............
4.4.3.3 lmpact Analysis Methods..
4.4.4 Findings and Recommendations .
4.5 Food Service Equipment
4.5.1 Overview..
4.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
4.5.3 Methodology. .
4.5.3.1 Sampling ..............
4.5.3.2 Document Audits.......
4.5.3.3 lmpact Analysis Methods
4.5.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
4.6 Site Specific...........
4.6.1 Overview..
4.6.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
4.6.3 Methodology. .
4.6.3. 1 Sampling ..............
4.6.3.2 Document Audits.......
4.6.3.3 Field lnspections.......
4.6.3.4 Project-Specific Billing Analysis
4.6.3.5 Project-Specific Trend Data Analysis............
4.6.3.6 Project-Specific Energy Modeling Analysis...
4.6.3.7 Algorithm-Based lmpact Analysis Methods...
4.6.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
4.7 Small Business Program
4.7.1 Overview..
4.7.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
4.7.3 Methodology ...........
4.7.3. 1 Sampling ..............
4.7.3.2 Document Audits.......
4.7.3.3 Onsite lnspections...............
4.7.3.4 lmpact Analysis Methods .......
4.7.4 Findings and Recommendations ......
4.7.4.1 lnstallation Persistence ..........
4.8 Nonresidential Sector Results Summary
50
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
54
55
55
55
55
56
57
57
58
Lt Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs t1t
45
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
5 Residential lmpact Evaluation.......
5.1 Overview
5.2 HVAC Program..
5.2.1 Overview..
5.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.2.3 Methodology..... . ....
5.2.3.1 Program billing analysis
5.2.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
5.3 Water Heat Program
5.3.1 Overview.........
5.3.2 Program Achlevements and Participation Summary
5.3.3 Methodology .. . . .
5.3.3. 1 Water Heaters....
5.3.3.2 Low Flow Showerheads.,.
5.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
5.4 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
5.4.1 Overview..
5.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.4.3 Methodology.... .. .. .
5.4.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
5.5 Fuel Efficiency
5.5.1 Overview..
5.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.5.3 Methodology... .. . .
5.5.4 Findings and Recommendations .......
5.6 Shell Program
5.6.1 Overview..
5.6.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.6.3 Methodology ............
5.6.3.1 Program billing analysis...
5.6.4 Findings and Recommendations
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
63
64
64
66
68
69
69
69
69
70
71
71
71
72
73
73
73
74
74
75
75
76
76
76
77
80
81
iv
5.7
5.8
o No/onr
Low 1ncome..............
5.7.1 Overview..
5.7.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
5.7.3 Methodology ............
5.7.4 Findings and Recommendations ..............
Residentia! Sector Results Summary
lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Summary
6.2 lmpact Findings
6.3 Conclusions and Recommendations..
6.3.1 Nonresidential Programs .........
6.3.1.1 Natural Gas Prescriptive Programs
6.3.1.2 Small Busrness Program
6.3.1.3 Sife Specffic Program.....
6.3.2 Residential Programs
6.3.2.1 HVAC Program
6.3.2.2 Water Heat.........
6.3.2.3 Fuel Efficiency................
6.3.2.4 Shell Program ................
6.3.2.5 Low lncome Program.....
Appendix A Net to Gross Methodology and Findings
83
83
83
85
85
86
86
86
87
87
87
87
87
88
Appendix B Sampling and Estimation
Appendix G Billing Analysis Regression Outputs .........
A-1
B-1
G-1
el Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs v
List of Figures
Figure L-t:2OL7 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Sector Program Gross Saving Shares (conservation
only)
Figure L-2:2OL6ldaho NaturalGas NonresidentialSector Program Gross Saving Shares (conservation
only)
Table 2-3: Natural Gas HVAC Measures
Table 2-4: Small Business Program Measure Overview,
Table 2-5: Residential Program Type and Description..,
4
5
Figure t-3:20L7 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Sector Program Gross Saving Shares (Conservation Only)G
Figure 1,-4:201,6ldaho NaturalGas ResidentialSector Program Gross Saving Shares (Conservation Only)7
Figure 2-1: Site Specific Program Process........ ...........12
Figure 3-1: Electric Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants 31
Figure 3-2: Gas Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants................. ...........32
Figure 4-L:2017 Nonresidential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares 37
Figure 4-2: 2017 EnergySmart Grocer Reported Energy Savings Shares ............39
Figure 4-3: Site Specific Reported Participation Energy Savings Shares
Figure 4-4: Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings Shares..
Figure 5-L: Residential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares (Conservation Only)
Figure 5-2: 2017 HVAC Program Reported Participation Energy Saving Shares......... ............61
Figure 5-3: HVAC post-treatment consumption .........63
Figure 5-4: 2017 Water Heat Program Reported Participation Energy Saving Shares ...........54
Figure 5-5: Federal Standards for Natural Gas Storage Water Heaters........ ......65
Figure 5-5: 2004 Federal Standards for Natural Gas Tankless Water Heaters 65
Figure 5-7: 2Ol7 Fuel Efficiency Program Reported Gas Penalty Shares......... .......................72
Figure 5-8: 2017 Shell Program Reported Energy Saving Shares......... ...............74
Figure 5-9: Shell Post-Treatment lmpacts 75
Figure S-tO:2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Energy Saving Shares: Conservation Measures .........77
Figure 5-11: Distribution of Reported Therm Values by Home Type 79
Figure 5-L2: 2Ot4-20L5 vs 2016-2017 Low lncome Biennium Consumption.................. .......80
Table 5-21: Residential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results 82
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of lmpact Evaluation Activities
Table 1-2: 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Table 1-3: 2016 ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Table 1-4: 2017 ldaho Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Table 1-5: 2015 ldaho Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Table 1-6: 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
Table 1-7: 2016 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
Table 2-1: Food Service Equipment Program Measures.... .............13
Table 2-2: Commercial lnsulation Measures
49
55
60
2
2
3
3
4
6
7
15
15
16
77
A Nq0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Naturat Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs viii
Table 2-6 HVAC Measure Overview. .......18
Table2-7 Water Heat Program Measure Overview.
Table 2-8 ENERGY STAR' Homes Measure Overview
Table 2-9 Fuel Efficiency Measure Overview..... .........19
Table 2-10 Shell Measure Overuiew
Table 2-11 Low lncome CAP Agencies
Table 2-72 Low lncome Approved Measure List (100% of costs offset by Avista)
Table 2-13 Low lncome Rebate 1ist..............
Table 2-14: Avista Nonresidential Reported Participation and Savings
Table 2-15: Avista Residential Reported Participation and Savings
Table 3-1: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Residential Programs
Table 3-2: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs
Table 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Confidence/Precision for Gas Residential Programs....
Table 3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs
Table 3-5: Description of Energy Savings Model Regression Variables
Table 3-5: Fixed Effects Regression Model Definition of Terms
Table 4-1: 2017 Nonresidential Program Reported Savings
Table 4-2: 2016 Nonresidential Program Reported Savings
Table 4-3: Nonresidential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample
Table 4-4: EnergySmart Grocer Reported Energy Savings by Measure. .............38
Table 4-5: Energy Smart Grocer Achieved Sample
Table 4-6: Energy Smart Grocer lmpact Energy Realization Rate Results ...............41
Table 4-7: Energy Smart Grocer Gross Verified Savings
Table 4-8: Commercial lnsulation Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Table 4-9: Commercial lnsulation Achieved Sample.
Table 4-10: Commercial lnsulation Onsite Data Collection ...............
Table 4-11: Commercial lnsulation lmpact Energy Realization Rate Results
Table 4-12: Commercial lnsulation Gross Verified Savings.....
Table 4-13: Natural Gas HVAC Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Table 4-14: Natural Gas HVAC Achieved Sample........
Table 4-15: Natural Gas HVAC lmpact Energy Realization Rate Results
Table 4-16: Natural Gas HVAC Gross Verified Savings
Table 4-17: Food Service Equipment Reported Energy Savings
Table 4-18: Food Service Equipment Achieved Sample........
Table 4-19: Food Service Equipment Realization Rate Results
Table 4-20: Food Service Equipment Gross Verified Savings.....
Table 4-21: Site Specific Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Table 4-22: Site Specific Achieved Sample........
Table 4-23: Site Specific Onsite Data Collection
Table 4-24: Site Specific Program Realization Rate Results
Table 4-25: Site Specific Measure-Level Gross Verified Savings
Table 4-26: Site Specific Gross Verified Savings..............
Table 4-27: Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Table 4-28: Small Business Program lmpact Evaluation Achieved Sample
18
19
20
20
2L
21.
22
22
26
26
27
27
33
35
36
36
37
39
41.
41.
42
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
51
52
53
53
54
55
L1 Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs tx
Table 4-29: Small Business Program Onsite Data Collection
Table 4-30: Small Business Program Realization Rate Summary.................
Table 4-31: Small Business lnstallation Persistence
Table 4-32: Small Business Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
Table 4-33: Nonresidential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
Table 5-1: Residential Program Reported Savings........
Table 5-2: Residential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample
Table 5-3: HVAC Program Reported Participation and Savings
Table 5-4: HVAC Program Gross Verified Savings..
Table 5-5: 2017 Water Heat Reported Participation and Savings
Table 5-6: Water Heater Parameters and Data Sources.......
Table 5-7: Low Flow Showerhead Parameters and Data Sources
Table 5-8: Water Heat Program Gross Verified Savings
Table 5-9: 2017 ENERGY STARo Homes Reported Participation and Savings.
Table 5-10: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program Definition of Terms
Table 5-11: ENERGY STAR Home: Results for Natural Gas Homes 2074-2OtS Evaluation
Table 5-12: ENERGY STAR@ Homes Program Gross Verified Savings
Table 5-13:20L7 Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation and Savings.
Table 5-14: Electric to Gas Conversion Calculation
Table 5-15: Fuel Efficiency Program Reported and Gross Verified Savings........
Table 5-16: 2017 Shell Program Reported Participation and Savings
Table 5-17: Shell Program Gross Verified Savings
Table 5-18: 2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Participation and Savings
Table 5-19: Low lncome Billing Analysis Findings.
Table 5-20: Low-lncome Program Gross Verified Savings
Table 6-1: 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Table 5-2: 2016 ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Table 6-3: 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Table 5-4: 2015 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Table 6-5: 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
Table 5-6: 2015 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
Equations
Equation 3-1: Gross Verified Savings Equation
Equation 3-2: Monthly Energy Savings Model Specification
Equation 3-3: Regression Model Specification for Electric Measures
Equation 3-4: Regression Model Specification for Gas Measures.
Equation 4-1: Commercial lnsulation Heating Savings Calculation
Equation 4-2: Natural Gas HVAC Savings Calculation
Equation 4-3: Small Business Program Energy Savings Calculation..
Equation 5-1: Water Heater Energy Savings Calculation..
Equation 5-2: Low Flow Showerhead Energy Savings Calculation
Equation 5-3: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program
56
57
58
58
58
59
60
61.
63
64
55
67
58
59
70
70
70
71.
73
73
74
76
77
81
81
83
84
84
84
85
85
28
32
34
34
43
45
56
65
55
70
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs x
0 NOQfiT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs xl
l Executive Summary
Nexant lnc. and Research lnto Action (collectively the evaluation team) conducted an impact
and process evaluation of Avista's 2016 and 2017 residentialand nonresidentialenergy
efficiency programs. This report documents findings from the impact evaluation activities for
Avista's ldaho natural gas programs. The primary goal of this evaluation was to provide an
accurate summary of the gross energy savings attributable to the following Avista programs
offered in 2016 andlor 2017
Nonresidential Prescriptive
Nonresidential Site Specific
Small Business
Residential Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
ResidentialWater Heat
Residential ENERGY STAR@ Homes
Residential Fuel Efficiency
Residential Shell
Low lncome
1.1 Evaluation Methodology and Activities
The evaluation team performed the impact evaluation through a combination of document
audits, customer surveys, engineering analysis and onsite measurement and verification (M&V)
of completed program projects. Because it is not cost-effective to complete analysis and onsite
inspection on a census of the implemented projects, the evaluation team verified energy savings
for a representative sample of projects to draw statistically-measurable results. The gross
verified program savings were adjusted by a realization rate (RR), which is the ratio of
evaluation verified savings to the program-reported savings within the sample.
The evaluation team conducted more than 600 document audits, 139 customer surveys, and 52
onsite inspections across the residential and nonresidential programs being evaluated (Table
1-1). ln addition, the evaluation team conducted billing regression analysis to estimate the
impacts of three residential programs and on a case-by-case basis for the nonresidential
projects. The samples were designed to meet a 90% confidence and 10% precision level at the
portfolio and sector level and were based upon the expected and actual significance (or
magnitude) of program participation, the level of certainty of savings, and the variety of
measures.
O NeXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 1
I
I
I
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-1: Summary of lmpact Evaluation Activities
HVAC Program {
Water Heat Program
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Shell Program
Low lncome
Energy Smart Grocer As applicable
HVAC
Food Service Equipment
Small Business
Site Specific As applicable
Commercial lnsulation
Total
1.2 Summary of lmpact Evaluation Results
Avista's ldaho natural gas programs achieved 305,545 therm savings in 2017 and 229,941
therm savings in 2016 (conservation only measures). Table 1-2 through Table 1-7 and Figure
1-1 through Figure 1-4 summarize Avista's 2016 and 2017 impact evaluation results by year,
sector and program.
Table 1-2:2017 ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential 232,898
Nonresidential 71,182
Low lncome 1,464
Portfolio 305,545
1 Fuel conversion measures (measures wherein customers convert from electric to natural gas space and water heating) result in a
negative impact and are not included in the total. lmpacts of fuel conversion measures can be found in the program specific
sections (Sections 4 and 5).
{
{
Document
Audit Surveys r Onsite M&V Billing
AnalysisProgram
159 44
63
15
76 43
75
133
12 6
12 6 0
11 6 6
22 16 16
27 22 22
3 2 2
608 139 52
180,953 129%
67,915 105%
5,30'1 28o/o
254,169 120%
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Realization RateSector
Lt NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 2
Residential
Nonresidential
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-3: 2016ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential 192,009
Nonresidential 37,072
Low lncome 860
Portfolio Tota12 229,941
Table 1-4:20'17 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 3,s09
Food Service Equipment 14,301
HVAC 11,752
Commercial lnsulation 11,735
Small Business 28,975
Site Specifi c Conservation 911
Nonresidential Totat3 71,182
2 Fuel conversion measures (measures wherein customers convert from electric to natural gas space and water heating) result in a
negative impact and are not included in the total. lmpacts of fuel conversion measures can be found in the program specific
sections (Sections 4 and 5).
3 Nonresidential total does not include impacts of Site Specific fuet conversion measures. See Section 4.6 for fuel conversion
impacts.
151,598 127%
34,582
3,114 28%o
189,294 121o/o
2016 Reported
Savings (therms)
2016 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Sector Realization Rate
8,370 42o/o
13,588 105%
9,467 124%
8,282 142%
27,404 106%
804 113%
105%
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 3
107o/o :
67,915
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 'l-1= 2017 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Sector Program Gross Saving Shares
(conservation only)
47%I Energysmart Grocer
I Food Service Equipment
T HVAC
I Commercial lnsulation
I Small Business
Site Specific Conservation
77%
760/o
Table 1-5: 2016ldaho NaturalGas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 84
Food Service Equipment 21,557
HVAC 4,112
Commercial lnsulation
Small Business 9,446
Site Specifi c Conservation 1,873
Nonresidential Totala 37,072
4 Nonresidential total does not include impacts of Site Specific fuel conversion measures. See Section 4.6 for fuel conversion
impacts.
200 42%
20,483 105%
3,312 124%
0 142o/o
8,934 1060/o
1,653 113o/o
34,582 107o/o
2016 Reported
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
e', NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 4
7%
I-
2016 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure 1-2: 2016ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Sector Program Gross Saving Shares
(conservation only)
26%
r Energysmart Grocer
r Food Service Equipment
r HVAC
r SmallBusiness
r Site Specific Conservation
58%
T7
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 5
s%
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-6:.2017 ldaho Natura! Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC 194,247
ENERGY STAR Homes 863
Shell '11,856
Water Heat Program 25,932
Low lncome Conservation 1,464
Residentia! Totals 234,362
Figure 1-3:2017 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Sector Program Gross Saving Shares
(Conservation Only)
t%
s%
o%
I HVAC
r ENERGY STAR Homes
r Shell
! Water Heat Program
I Low lncome Conservation
83o/o
5 Residential total does not include impacts of residential and low income fuel conversion measures. See Sections 5.5 and 5.7 for
fuel conversion impacts.
7%
146,043 133%
406 212o/o
15,132 78o/o
19,372 134%
5,301 28o/o
186,254 126Yo
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)Realization RateProgram
0 Nfj/f1nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 6
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-7:2016ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC 140,081
ENERGY STAR Homes 431
Shell 14,373
Water Heat Program 37,123
Low lncome Conservation 860
Residentia! Tota!6 '192,869
Figure 1-4: 2016ldaho Natural Gas Residential Sector Program Gross Saving Shares
(Conservation Only)
I HVAC
r ENERGY STAR Homes
r Shell
r Water Heat Program
I Low lncome Conservation
73o/o
1.3 Gonclusions and Recommendations
The following outlines the key conclusions and recommendations as a result of the evaluation
activities. Additional conclusions and recommendations can be found in the program-specific
sections of this report and in Section 6.
1.3.1 Nonresidential Programs
The overall realization rate for lhe 2017 nonresidential portfolio is 105%. The realization rates
ranged trom 142o/o for the Commercial lnsulation program down to 42o/o for the Energy Smart
Grocer program. The evaluation team found that the processes Avista is utilizing for estimating
6 Residential total does not include impacts of residential and low income fuel conversion measures. See Sections 5.5 and 5.7 for
fuel conversion impacts.
o%
79o/o
8%
OYo
105,319 133o/o
203 212Yo
18,344 78o/o
27,732 134%
28%3,',t14
154,712 125Yo
2016 Reported
Savings (therms)
2016 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)Realization Rate
O Ne/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 7
Program
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and reporting energy savings for the nonresidential programs are predominantly sound and
reasonable.
Conclusion: Avista reported participation in four prescriptive naturalgas programsin20lT
Food Service Equipment, Commercial lnsulation, Natural Gas HVAC, and Energy Smart
Grocer. Strong realizations rates for most of these programs indicate that the Avista's deemed
savings estimates for these measures are accurate and appropriate.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate
these programs with the current level of rigor.
Conclusion: The Small Business program in lD constituted approximately 41% of the total
savings for the nonresidential portfolio in 2017. The evaluation team found a 106% realization
for the program.
Conclusion: The Small Business program implementer has improved their tracking of
decommissioned measures in the 2016-2017 biennium, in comparison to lhe2014-2015
biennium, as shown by the evaluation team's calculated persistence rate of 98% for the
measures included in the sample in the 2016-2017 biennium.
Conclusion: The Energy Smart Grocer program constituted about 12% of the nonresidential
natural gas portfolio energy shares. The evaluation team found a realization rate of 42%o for this
program, predominately due to a zero realization rate that was found for a few large projects in
the sample, based on utility bill analysis.
Recommendation: The Energy Smart Grocer program is implemented by a third party.
It is recommended that for large projects, Avista work more closely with the implementer
to ensure accurate reporting.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista consider using
performance-based incentives for any measures that are estimated to achieve
savings of 10% or more of annual natural gas consumption. For projects where eQuest
model were employed by the implementer to estimate savings, Avista should verify that
the baseline eQuest modelwas calibrated on a monthly basis for both gas and electric
consumption.
1.3.2 Residential Programs - including Low lncome
The overall realization rate for the residential portfolio's conservation programs was 125% while
the conversion programs achieved aTOo/o realization rate. The conversion programs all
performed wellwith realization rates above 100% with the exception of the Shell and Low
lncome programs. The conversion programs low realization rates indicates the forecasted
increase gas consumption was not realized.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a realization of 133% for the HVAC program. This is
similar to the findings of the 2014-2015 evaluation which found a 125o/o realization rate for
O Nfl/f1nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs I
SECTION ,1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ldaho. The findings are based on the analysis of 802 homes resulting in a relative precision of
6.8%.
Recommendation: Given that the realization rate is substantially higher than 100% and
is associated with a low error bound, Avista should consider revising its reported savings
values for measures within the program.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that the homes analyzed that converted from electric
heat to a natural gas furnace showed an average weather normalized gas consumption
increase of 328 therms per year resulting in a70oh realization rate. This impact and realization
rate is very similar to findings from the prior evaluation (384 therms increased consumption with
a 70o/o realization rate).
Recommendation The evaluation team recommends Avista review its forecasted gas
penalty for the Fuel Efficiency program. Based on two cycles of evaluation, the program
appears to be over-estimating the actual impact.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a realization rate of 78o/o for shell program. These
findings reflect reported savings are fairly well aligned for the program. However, there may be
room for further refinement of savings assumptions for the reported values.
Recommendation: To refine the reported savings assumptions, we recommend Avista
examine planning assumptions about per-home consumption, end-use load shares, and
percent reductions in heating loads from shell improvements.
O Ng@nf lmpact Evatuation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 9
2lntroduction
2.1 Purpose of Evaluation
The purpose of the impact evaluation was to verify the savings attributed to Avista's 2016-2017
rebate programs and to identify areas for future program opportunities. The evaluation team
estimated gross program energy impacts through a combination of documentation audits, and
telephone surveys, as well as engineering analysis and site inspections of completed program
projects.
2.2 Program Summary
The following section provides a description of each program evaluated in ldaho. Although the
program descriptions outline electric and gas measures, as applicable, the remainder of this
report provides the methodology and findings for the natural gas-only measures and programs.
2.2.1 Nonresidential
The nonresidential energy efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive
and site-specific offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is
automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program. Prescriptive paths for the nonresidential market are preferred for
measures that are relatively small and uniform in their energy efficiency characteristics. The
following subsections provide a summary of Avista's Site Specific and Prescriptive programs,
including a description of program offerings, measures, and incentive amounts.
2.2.1.1 Site Specific
Avista's Site Specific program offers nonresidential customers the opportunity to propose any energy
efficiency project outside the realm of Avista's other programs. Any project with documentable
energy savings (kilowatt-hours and/or therms) and a minimum ten year measure life can be
submitted for a technical review and potential incentive through the Site Specific program. The
majority of projects that participate in this program are appliance upgrades, compressed air,
HVAC, industrial process, motors, shell improvements, custom lighting, and fuel conversion.
Multi-family residential developments may also be treated through the Site Specific program when
the majority of the units and common areas are receiving the efficiency improvement. The
determination of incentive eligibility is based upon the project's individual characteristics as they
apply to the Company's electric Schedule 90 or natural gas Schedule 190 tariffs.
Customers or their representative are required to contact Avista for a Site Specific analysis prior
to any equipment being purchased or installed. Based on the post-verification process,
incentives may not be offered after the installation of energy efficiency equipment or process
under this program design. Electric incentives are offered up to 20 cents per kWh for projects
with a simple payback less than 15 years. lncentives are capped atTOo/o of incremental project
costs. Natural gas incentives are offered up to $3.00 per therm for projects with a simple
L, N€xl0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 10
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
payback of less than 15 years. lncentives are capped at70% of incremental project costs.
Simple payback is calculated as the incremental cost of a measure divided by the annual
energy savings of the measure, calculated using the customer's Avista electric and/or gas rate
lncremental costs are only those projects costs necessary for the energy efficiency
improvement. Fuel-conversion incentives are available only for conversion to natural gas with
an end-use efficiency of 44% or greater.
Avista internally implements the Site Specific program following a multi-stage internal
process outlined in Figure 2-1.f o be considered for incentives, Avista must receive
notification of a potential project during the planning stage. Avista engineers generate energy
analyses and savings estimates for each project.
These energy savings estimates are subjected to a rigorous internal review process, with the
level of review dependent on the potential incentive level for the project. Avista's current
internal review guidelines are as follows:
Measures that have an incentive of $0 and an energy based simple payback of over 20
years require no report and no review, just a form letter to the customer.
Measures that have incentives between $1 and $2,000 will be processed by the
reporting engineer without any other review.
Measures that have incentives between $2001 and $25,000 will be reviewed before
going to the customer by another qualified engineer.
Measures over $25,000 will be reviewed by another qualified engineer with an additional
technical management review prior to releasing to the customer.
Measures over $40,000 will be reviewed by another qualified engineer, a technical
manager, and an additional director review prior to releasing to the customer.
Avista employs the use of a "Technical Review Top Sheet" at each stage of the review
process. The Top Sheet is a checklist intended to ensure that all program processes and
policies have been followed and that project documentation is complete.
An "Energy Efficiency Evaluation Report" is generated for each project that includes a
summary of the project's scope of work, estimated energy savings and incentives. Following
project installation, Avista program staff members perform installation verification on nearly
100o/o of projects with limited exceptions. Program staff follows a "Payment Top Sheet" prior
to incentive payment, which is another checklist to ensure that the project has been
appropriately documented, tracked, and finalized.
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 11
I
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Project completed
Contract AE delivers report
lnstallation
verified
lnvoices submitted by
customer/vendor then
received by AE, program
coordinator and enqineer
Pavment
mdde to
customer
or designee
(AE delivers contract to
customer for signature and
works with program coordinator
to receive approvals and
finalize contract)
Provides potential
incentive opportunity to
cuslomer
Customer
notifies Avista
Decision to pro(eed
Contract
administrative review
Program coordinator
completes "Top Sheet -
energy ef f iciency agreement"
prior to contracting
Engineer
peer revrew
"Top Sheet -
technical review"
completed, report
Engineering
analysrs
Arrdit, prepare
proiect report
AE submits
tracker for
engineering
analysis
Oooortunitv
idehtitieo uy
customer or by AE
Enqineer or cGtomer
Figure 2-1: Site Specific Program ProcessT
2.2.1.2 EnergySmart Grocer
The EnergySmart Grocer program offers a range of proven energy-saving solutions for grocery
stores and other customers with commercial refrigeration. The program was designed to offer
personalized facility assessments to identify efficiency opportunities and incentives to offset the
upfront costs of efficiency projects, making it easy and affordable for participating businesses to
achieve significant savings on their utility bills. lncentives varied between 2016 and 2017
program years and were offered for the following measure categories:
. Refrigerated Cases
. Case Lighting
. Anti-Sweat Heater Controls
. Evaporated Fan - Walk-in ECM Controller
. Strip Curtains
. Gaskets for Walk-in Coolers, Walk-in Freezers, and Reach-in Glass Doors
! Evaporator Motors
. Floating Head Pressure
7 Demand Side Management Standard Operation Procedures. Avista Utilities. 2017.
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 12
AE contacts customer
Dis(usses oppurtunity,
determine site.specific
eligibility, schedule audit.
coordinate with DSM engineers
Pavment
ad?ninistrative review
Program coordinator completes
"Top Sheet - incentive
payment"
INTRODUCTION
Energy Smart Grocer is administered by CLEAResult with Avista oversight. The program is
available to electric (Schedule 11,12,21,25) or naturalgas (Schedule 101, 111,121)customers
2.2.1.3 Food Service Equipment
The Food Service Equipment Program provides incentives for the purchase and installation of
energy efficient commercial food service equipment to Avista's electric (Schedule 11, 12,21,
25) and naturalgas (Schedule 101 , 111,121) customers. Equipment must be commercial grade
and must meet Energy Star or Fishnick specifications. Certified equipment is 10-70% more
efficient than standard equipment, depending on product type. Types of rebated equipment
include fryers, steam cookers, hot food holding cabinets, commercial convection ovens, dish
washers, commercial ice machines, pre-rinse sprayers, and commercial rack ovens. Table2-1
summarizes the incentives available under the Food Service Equipment program. Avista
implements this program in a prescriptive manner, and incentives are issued to the participating
customer after the measure is installed.
Table 2-1: Food Service Equipment Program Measures
Equipment lncentive
Commercial Convection Oven, Natural Gas
Commercial Convection Oven, Electric
Commercial Combination Oven, Natural Gas
Commercial Combination Oven, Electric
Commercial Low Temp Electric Hot Water
Commercial High Temp Electric Hot Water
Commercial Low Temp Natural Gas Hot Water
Commercial High Temp Natural Gas Hot Water
Commercial Convection Ovens
Dish Washers
Gommercial lce Machines
Pre Rinse Sprayers
Under 200 LBS/Day Capacity
200-399 LBS/Day Capacity
400-599 LBS/Day Capacity
600-799 LBS/Day Capacity
800-999 LBS/Day Capacity
1000-1 199 LBS/Day Capacity
'1200-1 399 LBS/Day Capacity
1400-1 599 LBS/Day Capacity
1600-> LBS/Day Capacity
$700/ Each
$2251 Each
$1,000/ Each
$1,000/ Each
$600/ Each
$650/ Each
$300/ Each
$350/ Each
$40/Each
$60/Each
$80/Each
$'100/Each
$1 20/Each
$140/Each
$1 60/Each
$1 80/Each
$200/Each
1 to 1.00 GPM Electric
O N9/olnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 13
SECTION 2
$25
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
lncentiveEquipment
.61 to .80 GPM Electric
.81 to 'l .00 GPM Natural Gas
.61 to .80 GPM Natural Gas
$25
$25
$25
Commercial Rack Ovens
Commercial Rack Ovens, Natural Gas $23s
Hot Food Holding Carts
Hot Food Holding Carts, >15 cubic feet
Fryers
Commercial Fryer, Natural Gas $1,000/each
Commercial Fryer, Electric $300/each
Steam Cookers
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas $1,300/ 3 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas $1,700/ 4 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas $2,200/ 5 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas $2,600/ 6 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker Natural Gas $3,200/ 10 pan or >
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric $70/ 3 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric $100/ 4 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric $1 35/ 5 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric $160/ 6 pan
Commercial Steam Cooker, Electric $180/ 10 pan or >
Commercial Griddles
Commercial Griddle, Electric $50S/each
Commercial Griddle, Natural Gas $88/each
2.2.1.4 Commercial !nsulation
The Commercial lnsulation program offers incentives to Avista's nonresidential electric
(Schedule 11 , 12, 21, 25) or natural gas (Schedule 101 , 111 , 121) customers for improvements
to building envelopes through adding insulation. To participate in this prescriptive rebate
program, customers must submit documentation of the project that includes post-installation R-
values and affected square footage for insulation installation. The incentive levels for insulation
project are dependent on the pre-and post-retrofit level of insulation. Avista implements this
program in a prescriptive manner, and incentives are issued to the participating customer after
the measure is installed.
0 NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 14
$165/each
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-2: Gommercial lnsulation Measures
Less than R4 Wall lnsulation to R-1 1-R18 Retrofit $0.40
Less than R4 Wall lnsulation to R'19 or above Retrofit $0.45
Less than R11 Attic lnsulation to R30-R44 Retrofit $0.20
Less than R11 Attic lnsulation to R45 or above Retrofit $0.25
Less than R'1 '1 Roof lnsulation to R30 or above Retrofit $0.25
2.2.1.5 Natural Gas Commercial HVAC
This program offers direct incentives to Avista's nonresidential gas customers (Schedule 101,
111, 121) for installing high efficiency natural gas HVAC equipment. The Natural Gas
Commercial HVAC program encourages customers to select a high efficiency solution when
making upgrades to the heating systems serving their businesses. Equipment eligibility
guidelines are outlined in Table 2-3. Avista implements this program in a prescriptive manner,
and incentives are issued to the participating customer after the measure is installed.
Table 2-3: NaturalGas HVAC Measures
Natural Gas Single Stage Furnace
<225 kBtu/hr
$4.s0
$6.00
Natural Gas Multi Stage Furnace
<225 kBtu/hr
$6.00
$7.50
Natural Gas Boiler
<300 kBtu/hr
$5.00
$8.00
2.2.2 Small Business
The Small Business program is administered by SBW consulting and is a direct installation/audit
program providing customer energy-efficiency opportunities by: (1) directly installing appropriate
energy-saving measures at each target site, (2) conducting a brief onsite audit to identify
customer opportunities and interest in existing Avista programs, and (3) providing materials and
contact information so that customers are able to follow up with additional energy efficiency
measures under existing programs. This program is only available to customers who receive
electric service under Rate Schedule 11 and gas service under Rate Schedule 101 in
Washington and ldaho. Schedule 11 customers typically use less than 250,000 kwh per year.
Direct-install measures include faucet aerators, showerheads, pre-rinse spray valves, screw-in
LEDs, smart strips, CoolerMisers, and VendingMisers (Table 2-4).
01 Ngnn| lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 15
Measure lncentive ($ / sf)
90%-94.9% AFUE
95% AFUE or greater
90Yo-94.9o/o
95% AFUE or greater
85oh-89.9o/o
90% AFUE or greater
Equipment Efficiency lncentive per input kBtu
INTRODUCTION
Table 2-4: Small Business Program Measure Overview
Screw in LED Lamp (40W Equivalent)
Screw in LED Lamp (60W Equivalent)
Screw in LED Lamp (100W Equivalent)
Lighting Screw in LED BR30
Screw in LED BR40
Screw in LED PAR30
Screw in LEDPAR38
Low-flow faucet aerator (0.5 gpm) Electric Water Heat
Low-flow faucet aerator (1.0 gpm) Electric Water Heat
Low-flow faucet aerator (0.5 gpm) Gas Water Heat
Low-flow faucet aerator (1.0 gpm) Gas Water Heat
Hot Water Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Electric Heat
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Gas Heat
Shower Head Fitness Electric
Shower Head Fitness Gas
Shower Head Electric
Shower Head Gas
Cooler Miser
Control for glass-front cooler that uses passive
infrared (PlR) sensor to power down machine when
surrounding area is vacant
Vending Miser
Control for refrigerated beverage machine that uses
passive infrared (PlR) sensor to power down machine
when surrounding area is vacant
Tier I Smart Power Strip Eliminate standby power draw of peripheral devices
while continuing to power devices in "hot" outlets
2.2.3 Residential
Avista's residential portfolio is composed of several approaches to engage and encourage
customers to consider energy-efficiency improvements in their homes. Prescriptive rebate
programs are the main component of the portfolio, together with a variety of other interventions
These include upstream buy-down of low-cost lighting and water-saving measures; select
distribution of low-cost lighting and weatherization materials; an appliance recycling program; a
low-interest loan program; direct-install programs; and a multi-faceted, multichannel outreach
and customer engagement effort.
Throughout 2016 and 2017, Avista provided incentives and services for its residentialelectric
and gas customers in its Washington and ldaho service territories. The evaluation team
examined six core programs in ldaho that constituted the bulk of Avista's residential natural gas
Category Measure Description
A NgXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 16
SECTION 2
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
energy-efficiency offerings in 2016 and 2017. Table 2-5 provides a summary of those programs,
and the sections below detail each program.
Table 2-5: Residential Program Type and Description
Rebate for purchase of ENERGY STAR@ home
Rebate for conversion of electric to natural gas
furnace and/or water heater
Rebate for purchase of energy efficient and high
efficiency HVAC equipment, including variable
speed motors, air source heat pump, natural gas
furnace and boiler, and smart thermostat
Rebate for adding insulation to attic, walls, and
floor, as well as adding energy efficient windows.
Rebate for installation of high efficiency gas or
electric water heater, natural gas water heater, and
Smart Savings showerhead.
Direct manufacture discount for purchase of
approved CFLs, LEDs (bulbs and fixtures), and
low-flow showerheads.
Midstream
Behavior
Low-income
The Home Energy Reports program generates
behavioral savings from a treatment group, which
receives Home Energy Reports, which compares
the custome/s energy usage to similar homes in
Avista's service territory.
CAPs within Avista's Washington and ldaho service
territories implement the projects. CAPs determine
energy-efficiency measure installations based on
the results of a home energy audit.
2.2.3.1 HVAC Program
Avista internally manages the HVAC program which encourages the implementation of high
efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats through direct incentives issued to the
customer after the measure has been installed (Table 2-6). This program is available to all
residential electric (Schedule 1) or naturalgas (Schedule 101) customers who heat their homes
with Avista electricity or natural gas. Natural gas customers must demonstrate a winter heating
season gas usage of 340 therms to be eligible for participation. Existing or new construction
homes are eligible.
ENERGY STAR@
Homes Avista
Fuel Efficiency Avista
HVAC Program Avista
Shell Avista
Water Heater Avista
Residential Lighting:
Simple Steps, Smart
Savings
CLEAResult
Home Energy Reports Oracle
Low-income Programs Community Action
Partners (CAPs)
lmplementer DescriptionProgramsType
O Ngmnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs 17
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-6 HVAC Measure Overview
Variable speed motor
Electric to air source heat pump $700
Electric to ductless heat pump $450
High efficiency natural gas furnace $300
High efficiency natural gas boiler $300
Smart thermostat - self install $75
Smart thermostat - contractor install $1 00
2.2.3.2 Water Heat
Customers replacing their existing electric or natural gas water heater are eligible to receive a
rebate for selecting a high efficiency option. This program also includes discounted
showerheads available at participating retailers throughout Avista's WA and lD service territory
under the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. Table 2-7 outlines the measures offered and
rebate per unit.
Table 2-l Water Heat Program Measure Overview
Heat Pump Water Heater $200
Natural Gas; 40 gallon with 0.62 EF or higher*
Natural Gas; 50 gallon with 0.60 EF or higher*
Natural Gas: Tankless with 0.82 EF or higher $200
Simple Steps, Smart Savings Low-flow Showerheads: 1.5-2 GPM buydown
.whi there was no for these measures in 2016 or 2017 there was some participation in Q1 2016 as a result
of carryover from the 20'15 program year. Savings for these measures is documented in this evaluation.
2.2.3.3 ENERGY STAR@Homes
ENERGY STAR@certified home construction is administered by a Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) regional program. Avista provides a rebate for homes within their service
territory that successfully make it through this ENERGY STAR@ certification process. ln addition
to NEEA's program, the manufactured homes industry has established a labeling program for
Energy Star certified manufactured homes, which Avista also incentivizes. New home buyers
can apply for an $800 rebate for an ENERGY STAR@ ECO-rated new manufactured home or
$1,000 for an ENERGY STAR@ stick-built home. The purchaser must submit the application and
certification papenrvork to Avista within 90 days of occupying the residence. The ENERGY
STAR@ home rebate may not be combined with other Avista individual measure rebates (e.9.
high efficiency water heaters).
Table 2-8 describes eligible measures available for the program
$80$1 00
$900
$300
$300
$35
$70
Fuel Efficiency Measures 20'16 Rebate 2017 Rebate
$1 80
Water Heat Measure 2016 Rebate l, zotl Rebate
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 18
$1,000
$6s0
$800
$800
Energy Star Home Measure 2016 Rebate 2017 Rebate
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-8 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Measure Overview
Stick built - electric $1,000
Stick built or manufactured w/ gas only
Manufactured w/ fu rnace $800
Manufactured w/ heat pump $800
2.2.3.4 Fuel Efficiency Program
The fuel efficiency program offers a rebate for the conversion of electric straight resistance heat
to natural gas, as well as the conversion of electric hot water heaters to natural gas models. The
home must have used 4,000 or more kWh of electric space heat during the previous winter
season to be eligible for flat-rate rebates. lf natural gas is not available or is not suitable for the
home, the installation of an air source heat pump as a replacement unit is accepted (see electric
to air source heat pump measure under 2.2.3.1 HVAC Program).
Table 2-9 Fuel Efficiency Measure Overview
Electric to natural gas conversion - space heat $1,s00
Electric to natural gas conversion - water heat $750
Electric to natural furnace and water heat - combo $2,250
Electric to natural gas wall heaters - space heat $1 300
2.2.3.5 Residential Lighting
The Simple Steps, Smart Savings program provides discounts to manufacturers to lower the
price of efficient light bulbs, light fixtures, showerheads, and appliances. This program, launched
by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and administered by CLEAResult, operates across
the Pacific Northwest. Utilities are able to select which reduced price items to include in their
territory. Avista's offerings include a selection of general and special CFLs, LED light fixtures,
and LED bulbs. Retailers such a big box stores and regional and national chains are the primary
recipient of the product and typically select from Avista's approved options what they will carry
at their store location. These products are clearly identified with a sticker indicating they are part
of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
2.2.3.6 Shell Program
Avista's internally managed shell program incentivizes measures that improve the integrity of
the home's envelope (Table 2-10). For insulation and windows: rebates are issued to the
customer after measure has been installed. Eligibility guidelines for participation include but may
not be limited to: confirmation of electric or natural gas heating usage, itemized invoices
including insulation levels or window values and square footage. Pre and/or postinspection of
insulation and windows may occur as necessary throughout the year. Customer must
demonstrate a winter heating season electricity usage of 8,000 kilowatt hours or 340 therms to
L, Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 19
$2,300
$600
$3,200
$1,300
Fuel Efficiency Measures 2016 Rebate : 2017 Rebate
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
be eligible for insulation and window program participation. Addition of insulation that increases
the R-value by R-10 or greater for both fitted/batt type and blow-in products are eligible.
Windows with a U-factor of 0.30 or less that replace single or double pane windows are eligible.
Table 2-10 Shell Measure Overview
Attic insulation
Wall insulation
Floor insulation
Window insulation $1.50
Storm Windows $1.00
2.2.3.7 Home Energy Reports
Avista provides peer comparison reports of home energy consumption, termed Home Energy
Reports (HER), through Oracle. This is an opt-out program aimed to encourage customers to
save energy. 73,500 customers were initially mailed HERs in June of 2013: 48,300 to WA
customers and 25,200 to lD customers. The cadence of reports began by sending out a report
every month for the first three months followed by a bi-monthly mailing of reports thereafter. At
the start of the 2016-2017 biennium, attrition due to opt outs and account closures reduced the
original population of 48,300 treatment customers to about 34,000 customers. At the beginning
of the 2016-2017 biennium, Avista 'refilled'the program back to a count of close to 26,000
treatment customers in ldaho, who received their first report in April, 2016. Customers must be
a recipient of Avista electricity to qualify.
2.2.3.8 Low lncome
Avista leverages Community Action Program (CAP) agencies to deliver energy efficiency
programs to low-income customers. CAP agencies have resources to income qualify, prioritize
and treat homes based upon a number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annual
funding, the Agencies have other monetary resources that they can usually leverage when
treating a home with weatherization and other energy efficiency measures. The Agencies either
have in-house or contractor crews to install many of the efficiency measures of the program.
ln ldaho, a single network agency serves Avista's ldaho territory and received $700,000 for
efficiency improvements with an additional $50,000 for conservation education outreach.
Table 2-'l1Low lncome CAP Agencies
Community Action Partnership - Lewiston Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Cleanvater, ldaho,
Kootenai, Latah, Lewis, Nez, Perce, Shoshone
R-l9 or less $0.1 5
R-5 or less $0.25
R-5 or less $0.20
0.30 u-factor or lower $3.50
Fuel Efficiency Measures Existing Eguipment
Efficiency
2016 Rebate
($/sf1
2017 Rebate
($/sf1
CAP Agency Serving Counties
A Nfjnnf tmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 20
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Avista provides CAP agencies with an "approved measure list", the items on this list are
reimbursed 100% (Table 2-12). Avista also provides a "rebate list" of additional energy saving
measures the CAP agencies are able to utilize (Table 2-13).
Table 2-12 Low lncome Approved Measure List (100% of costs offset by Avista)
Electric to Gas Furnace Conversion Electric
Electric to Gas Water Heater
Conversion
Electric
Duct sealing Electric and Natural Gas
Air lnfiltration Electric
Table 2-13 Low lncome Rebate List
Gas High Efficiency Furnace Natural Gas
Gas High Efficiency Water Heater Natural Gas
Electric to air source heat pump (when natural gas not
viable)
Electric to heat pump water heater
Energy Star@ Doors
Energy Star@ Windows
Energy Star@ Refrigerators
lnsulation (ceiling / attic, floors, walls, and ducts)
Air lnfiltration
Electric
Electric
Electric and Natural Gas
Electric and Natural Gas
Electric
Electric and Natural Gas
Natural Gas
2.3 Program Participation Summary
Reported participation and savings for Avista's 2017 programs is outlined in Table 2-14 and
Table 2-15.
Measures End Use
Measures End Use
O N€I/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 21
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-14: Avista Nonresidentia! Reported Participation and Savings
EnergySmart Grocer 8,370
Food Service Equipment 13,588
HVAC 9,467
Commercial lnsulation 8,282
Small Business
Site Specifi c Conservation 804
Site Specific Fuel Conversion -13,974
Portfolio Total - Conservation Only 67,915
-lndividual measure count
Table 2-15: Avista Residential Reported Participation and Savings
HVAC 146,043
ENERGY STAR Homes 2,026
Shell 15,132
Water Heat Program*19,372
Low lncome Conservation 5,30'1
Conservation Total 187,874
Fuel Efficiency (Fuel Conversion)-1 18,905
Low lncome Fuel Conversion -'t1,453
Fuel Gonversion Total -130,358
*lncludes counts for both projects and showerheads
2.4 Evaluation Goals and Objectives
"lttlodel Energy-Efficiency Program lmpact Evaluation Guide - A Resource of the National Action
Plan for Energy Efficiency," published in November 2007. The report states:
Evaluation is the process of determining and documenting the results, benefits,
and lessons learned from an energy-efficiency program. Evaluation results can
be used in planning future programs and determining the value and potential of a
portfolio of energy-efficiency programs in an integrated resource planning
process. lt can also be used in retrospectively determining the performance (and
resulting payments, incentives, or penalties) of contractors and administrators
re spon si bl e fo r i m pl e m e nti n g effici e n cy p rog ram s.
Evaluation has two key obiectives:
01 Ne,OnT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
4
20
23
6
1,405.
3
1
1,461
Nonresidential Gas
Program
2017 Reported
Project Count
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
1 ,719
22
214
704
213
2,872
318
63
38r
Residential Gas Program 2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
22
27,404
2017 Participation
Count
SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION
1. To document and measure the effects of a program and determine
whether it met its goals with respect to being a reliable energy resource.
2. To help understand why those effects occuned and identify ways to
improve.
Avista has identified the following objectives for the evaluation:
lndependently verify, measure and document energy savings impacts from Avista's
electric and natural gas energy efficiency programs, or for program categories
representing consolidated small scale program offerings, by Avista in 2016 and 2017
Analytically substantiate the measurement of those savings
Calculate the cost effectiveness of the portfolio and component programs
ldentify program improvements, if any,
ldentify possible future programs.
O NOOhI lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs 23
3 lmpact Evaluation Methodology
The impact evaluation assessed the gross savings attributable to Avista's 2016 and 2017
energy-efficiency programs. lmpact evaluations generally seek to quantify the energy and, when
possible, the non-energy savings that have resulted from DSM program operations. These
savings may be expressed as all of the changes resulting from the program (gross savings), or
only those changes that would not have occurred absent the program (net savings).
The evaluation team verified the gross energy savings of Avista's 2016 and 2017 programs by:
. Understanding the program context
. Designing the impact evaluation sample
. Verifying the project and program savings through document audits, telephone surveys,
onsite measurement and verification, and billing analysis
. Comparing Avista-reported savings to savings verified during projectlevel evaluations to
determine verified gross savings.
3.1 Understanding the Program Context
The first significant step of the evaluation activities was to gain a comprehensive understanding
of the programs and measures being evaluated. Specifically, the team explored the following
documents and data records:
Avista's 2016 Demand Side Management (DSM) Business Plans which detail processes
and energy savings justifications
Project documents from external sources, such as documents from customers, program
consultants, or implementation contractors.
Based on the initial review, the evaluation team outlined the distribution of program contributions
to the overall portfolio of programs. ln addition, the review allowed the evaluation team to
understand the sources for unit energy savings for each measure offered in the programs, along
with the sources for energy-savings algorithms and the internal quality assurance and quality
control (OfuOC) processes for large nonresidential projects. Following this review, the
evaluation team designed the sample strategy for the impact evaluation activities, as discussed
in the following section.
3,2 Designing the Sample
Sample development was an important step that enabled the evaluation team to deliver
meaningful, defensible results to Avista. The evaluation team used stratified random sampling
approaches for much of our data collection activities. Our sampling methodology was guided by
a "value of information" (VOl) framework which allowed us to target activities and respondents
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 24
IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
with expected high impact and yield, while representing the entire population of interest. VOI
focuses budgets and rigor towards the programs/projects with high uncertainty and high impact
For the sample design, the evaluation team organized the programs into 'bins', segmenting the
programs based on two metrics:
Program Uncertainty: The risks associated with a program's reported savings (i.e.,
custom vs. deemed vs. RegionalTechnical Forum status), delivery mechanism, and
performance goals, etc., broken into three categories: high, medium, and low.
Program Size: Either large, or small; based on projected energy savings, and planned
budget allocations.
Bins were created for residential and nonresidential programs separately and for electric
(WA/lD) and naturalgas (WA) programs separately.
ln parallel, we calculate a 'level of rigor' value for each program, and based on assumed
measure complexity and RTF influence, we identify an appropriate level of sampling and
evaluation rigor.
Level of Sampling: Defined as confidence/precision for calculating sample sizes, the
evaluation team is using four levels: 90/10, 80/'10, 85/15, or 80120.
Evaluation Rigor: Defined as the level of detail used for the evaluation activities,
including four levels: document audit, surveys, onsite inspections, and billing analysis.
The evaluation bin identified for each program was one factor in determining the sample size
and level of rigor for the evaluation activities. Additional factors that influence the sample size
and level of rigor include evaluation costs, Regional Technical Forum (RTF) influence, and
findings and recommendations from prior evaluations.
The approaches (i.e. level of rigor) for estimating the gross energy savings for the programs
evaluated included: document audit, surveys, site inspections, and statistical billing analysis. ln
many cases, a combination of approaches were used to both validate savings and provide
insights into any identified discrepancies between reported and verified savings values. The
sampling strategy for the impact evaluation also overlapped, as applicable, with the sample
approach used for the process evaluation activities in order to obtain information for both the
impact and process evaluations during one single onsite inspection and/or survey. This nested
sampling approach helped to minimize costs while still maintaining adequate sample sizes.
Table 3-1and Table 3-2 show the planned sample sizes and level of rigor for the Electric
residential and nonresidential programs. The samples were drawn to meet the specified
confidence/precision for each program and to meet 90% confidence and 10% precision at the
portfolio levels. Because programs do not differ between the Washington and ldaho service
8 See Appendix A for detailed information on the presentation of uncertainty.
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 25
I
I
SECTION 3
SECTION 3 I MPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
territories, the sample approach was combined for both territories, and the findings from the
impact evaluation (i.e. realization rates) were applied across both states.
Table 3-1: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Residential Programs
Water Heat Program*
ENERGY STAR HoMCS census
HVAC Program census
ShellProgram census
HER Behavioral Program census
Low lncome census
Residential Total
"lncludes Simple Steps, Smart Savings upstream sho\iverhead component
Table 3-2: Planned Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs
HVAC
Food Service Equipment
Energy Smart Grocer
Small Business
Site Specific based on IPMVP
Nonresidential Total
sizes were are on
planning values
Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show the achieved sample sizes and confidence/precision levels for
the natural gas residential and nonresidential portfolios.
7
80120 68
census 68
census 68 42
census 68 42
census NA
census 68
90/10 340 84
Gas Residential Program 1 Target C/P Document
Audit
Billing
AnalysisSurveys
80t20 11 6 6
80t20 11 6 6
80t20 11 0 0
85/1 5 23 16 16
85/1 5 24 24 24
90/r0 80 52 52
Gas Nonresidential Program Target
clP"
Document
Audit
Onsite
lnspections Billing AnalysisSurveys
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 26
9017 159 44
90/1 3 63
90t44 15
90t14 76
90t11 75 43
90t57 133
90/6 521 87
Natural Gas Residential Program Achieved
c/P
Document
Audit
Billing
Analysis
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 3-3: Achieved Sampling and Confidence/Precision for Gas Residential Programs
HVAC
Water Heat
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Shell
Low lncome*
Residential Total
*Conservation projects only, does not include fuel conversion projects
Table 3-4: Achieved Sampling and Evaluation Rigor for Gas Nonresidential Programs
HVAC
Food Service Equipment
Energy Smart Grocer
Small Business
Site Specific
Commercial lnsulation
Nonresidential Total
3.3 Database Review
For all evaluated programs, the evaluation team conducted a review of the program databases
as provided by Avista and its third-party implementers. The purpose of the review was to look
for large outliers in program-reported data and to remove any duplicate entries found in the
databases. lf any large discrepancies were found, the evaluation team confirmed with Avista or
its third-party implementers that the discrepancies was or was not an error and if it was noted as
an error, the discrepancies were fixed and reported savings values were updated accordingly.
3.4 Verifying the Sample - Gross Verified Savings
The next step in the impact evaluation process was to determine the gross impacts, which are
the energy savings that are found at a customer site as the direct result of a program's
operation; net impacts are the result of customer and market behavior that can add to or
subtract from a program's direct results.
The impact evaluation activities resulted in realization rates, which were applied to the reported
savings. The ratio of the savings determined from the site inspections, measurement and
verification (M&V) activities, or engineering calculations to the program-reported savings was
0 Ng0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 27
0
6
6
16
2
52
22
80/1 3 12 6
80/1 0 11 6
80137 12 0
90/9 22 16
8014 27 22
80/33 3 2
90/5 87 52
Natural Gas Nonresidential
Program
Achieved
G/P
Document
Audit
Onsite
lnspectionsSurveys
Surveys
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
the project realization rate; the program realization rate was the weighted average for all
projects in the sample. The savings obtained by multiplying the program realization rates by the
program-adjusted/reported savings were termed the gross verified savings. These gross verified
savings reflect the direct energy and demand impact of the program's operations.
Total program gross savings were adjusted using Equation 3-1
Equation 3-1: Gross Verified Savings Equation
Thermsr6, = ThermsTsp * Realization Rate
Where:
Thermsao,Therms calculated by the evaluation team for the program, the
gross impact
Thermsno
Realization rate
Therms reported/adjusted for the program
weighted average Thermsral / Therms,ep for the research sample
The estimate of gross verified energy savings occurred through one or more levels of evaluation
rigor, as detailed in the following sections.
3.4.1 Document Audit
The first level of rigor that the evaluation team used was a document audit of all sampled
projects for which documentation existed. Document audits were also a critical precursor for
conducting telephone surveys and onsite inspections and, more specifically, for determining
projectspecific variables to be collected during these activities. The document audit for each
sampled project sought to answer three questions:
. Were the data files of the sampled projects complete, well documented, and adequate
for calculating and reporting the savings?
. Were the calculation methods correctly applied, appropriate, and accurate?
. Were all the necessary fields properly populated?
3.4.2 Telephone Survey
A second level of evaluation rigor was through stand-alone telephone surveys with program
participants. Telephone surveys were conducted in conjunction with the process evaluation
activities and were used to gather information on the energy-efficiency measure implemented,
information needed to estimate net-to-gross values, the key parameters needed to verify the
assumptions used by RTF for approved values or to estimate verified energy savings, and any
baseline data that may be available from the participant.
3.4.3 Onsite Measurement and Verification
A sample of projects in the nonresidential sector was selected for onsite measurement and
verification activities. Before conducting site inspections, it was important for field engineers to
Ll NOOfiT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 28
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
understand the project that they were verifying. This understanding was built from the
document-audit task discussed earlier. For all onsite inspections, a telephone survey served as
an introduction to the evaluation activities and was used to confirm that the customer
participated in the program, to confirm the appropriate contact, and to verifo basic information
such as building type and building size. All onsite activities were conducted by evaluation team
field engineers.
The evaluation team conducted two levels of rigor associated with the onsite inspections -
measurement and verification (M&V) and verification-only (V). Upon review of the project
documents, the evaluation team decided which level of rigor was appropriate for each sampled
project/measure. ln cases where the measure had an approved RTF UES value, the evaluation
team's effort focused on verifying the quality and quantity of installation to apply the RTF UES
values to.
M&V methods were developed with adherence to the IPMVP. As defined by IMPVP, the general
equation for energy savings is defined as:s
Normalized Savings =
(Baseline Energy + Routine Adjustments to fixed conditions t Non-Routine Adjustmenfs fo
fixed conditions ) - ( Reporting Peiod Energy t Routine Adjustments to fixed conditions *
Non-Routine Adjustments to fixed conditions )
The broad categories of the IPMVP are as follows:
. Option A, Retrofit lsolation: Key Parameter Measurement - This method uses
engineering calculations, along with partial site measurements, to verify the savings
resulting from specific measures.
. Option B, Retrofit lsolation: All Parameter Measurement - This method uses engineering
calculations, along with ongoing site measurements, to verify the savings resulting from
specific measures.
. Option C, Whole Facility: This method uses whole-facility energy usage information,
most often focusing on a utility bill analysis, to evaluate savings.
. Option D, Calibrated Simulation: Computer energy models are employed to calculate
savings as a function of the important independent variables. The models must include
verified inputs that accurately characterize the project and must be calibrated to match
actual energy usage.
ln addition, the evaluation team conducted metering tasks on a subset of the onsite inspection
sample chosen for the M&V level of rigor. Projects were selected for metering activities based
on the measure type, project complexity, and the level of information needed to estimate gross
savings for the project.
e Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) "lnternational Pedormance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IMPVP) Concepts
and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings Volume 1", April 2007, page 1 9.
O NOOIT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 201 6-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 29
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
3.4.4 Billing Analysis
Participants received an assortment of efficiency measures through Avista's residential rebate
programs. Billing analyses are generally considered a best practice for calculating energy
savings resulting from "whole-house" efflciency retrofits. Thus, because of the diverse and
interactive savings profiles associated with the improvements, the evaluation team determined
that a utility bill regression analysis was the best method for quantifying energy savings resulting
from these programs' treatment measures.
The utility billing analysis used data from participating customers who had sufficient utility-billed
consumption records before and afterthe measure installation. Specifically, the evaluation team
used a billing analysis approach for estimating gross verified savings for all measures in the
following residential programs: Shell, Fuel Efficiency, HVAC, Home Energy Reports, and Low
lncome.
The evaluation team requested program tracking data and complete billing histories for Avista's
residential rebate program participants as well as nonparticipants to develop a matched
comparison group (see Section 3.4.4.1 below). We aimed to use participant data that contained
at least one full year of utility billing data before and after measure installation to ensure that
seasonal effects of the improvements are captured in the savings estimates. However, because
of the timing of measure installations and the nature of certain programs, some participants may
have had up to nine months of post-installation data available.
Before performing the analysis, utility billing records were assessed for quality and
completeness. Duplicate observations were removed from the billing data. Billing periods of
more than 35 days or less than 26 days were also excluded from the dataset because these
observations are not representative of a typical billing cycle.
3.4.4.1 Comparison Group Selection
Nexant selected the comparison groups using propensity score matching to find residential
Avista customers who are nonparticipants with monthly consumption most similar to those of
participants. ln this procedure, a probit model is used to estimate a score for each customer
based on a set of observable variables that are assumed to affect the decision to participate in a
rebate program. A probit model is a regression model designed to estimate probabilities-in this
case, the probability that a customer would participate. The score can be interpreted two
different ways. First, the propensity score can be thought of as a summary variable that includes
all the relevant information in the observable variables about whether a customer would choose
to participate in a rebate program. Each participant was matched with a customer in the
nonparticipant population that has the closest propensity score. The second way to think of the
propensity score is as the probability that a customer will participate in a rebate program based
on the included independent variables. Thinking of it this way, each customer in the comparison
group was matched to a treated customer with a similar probability of participating given the
observed variables.
O NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 30
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Nexant performed the match within each program and state. ln other words, the match was
conducted separately for customers in Washington and ldaho and for each rebate program. The
match was based on a set of variables that characterize energy consumption during the full
calendar year prior to treatment (2015). Twenty matches based on various combinations of
monthly, seasonal, and annual energy consumption were tested and the final probit model
which resulted in the closest match between participant and comparison customer average
usage each month of 2015 was selected. One match was found for each participant and the
same comparison customer could not be matched to multiple participants.
Figure 3-1 displays the average daily kWh consumption in 2015 for participants in the Electric
Shell program and for the matched comparison group. Over the year prior to treatment,
consumption was very similar between the two groups, with a difference of approximately 0.5%
on average. These differences are taken into account by the difference-in-differences estimation
methodology described in the following section.
Figure 3-2 displays the average daily therms consumption for each month in 2015 for the Gas
Shell group and the corresponding comparison group. Once again, consumption throughout the
pre-treatment year is very similar between the two groups, indicating that the matched
comparison group behaves similarly to participants in the absence of treatment.
Figure 3-1: Electric Shell Matched Control Group vs Participants
-Matched
Control
-Participanls
'$ ^9 .9g( <.s "st'
80
70
!360J<
350oo40
o
Pso
9zo
10
0
\b
Fa* {g{
^p ^9
tod t{ ooY i.o{ Oog
\b \c)^9 \b
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 31
-
IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Figure 3-2: Gas Shel! Matched Control Group vs Participants
-MatchedControl -Pafiicipanb5.0 -r-*
4.5 +--o
E
0,
->
Go
q,
cDG
o
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
I
I
r+
]-
+oo
-vo"
^9 ^{, \b \b
t"t 5'S ood *,e{)"(
^9 .$.9 \b \6 ^f,\b \b
(os'$"t ra" {g{
3.4.4.2 Ex Post Estimation Method
After the comparison groups for treatment customers were selected and validated, energy
impacts were estimated using a difference-in-differences (DiD) methodology for the Shell,
HVAC, Fuel Efficiency, and Home Energy Reportslo programs (the Low lncome program used a
participant pre/post billing analysis, see Section 3.4.4.2 below). lmpacts are estimated as the
difference in average consumption between treatment and comparison customers in each
month, with the slight difference between the two groups on the pre-treatment year removed.
This calculation controls for residual differences in load between the groups that are not
eliminated through the matching process, thus reducing bias.
The DiD analysis can be done by hand using simple averages or by using panel regression
analysis. Customer fixed effects regression analysis allows each customer's mean consumption
to be modeled separately, which reduces the standard error of the impact estimates without
changing their magnitude. Additionally, panel regression easily facilitates calculation of standard
errors, confidence intervals, and significance tests for load impact estimates that correctly
account for the correlation in customer loads over time.
The model specification for estimating load impacts is shown in Equation 3-2 and Table 3-5
provides detail for each model variable. The modelwas estimated separately for each hour and
event day.
Equation 3-2: Monthly Energy Savings Model Specification
datly-consumpttoni= q.* /event*ptreatXeventi * vi* e
10 The Oracle Home Energy Report program is designed as a randomized control trial and therefore a matched comparison group
was not selected for the billing analysis.
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 32
SECTION 3
Variable Description
Table 3-5: Description of Energy Savings Model Regression Variables
datly_consumpttoni Per customer consumption (kWh or therms)
for customer i
Mean consumption for all customers
v The coefficient on the post-treatment
indicator variable
post Equal to 1 for the post-treatment period and
0 for the same month in 2015
p DiD estimator of the treatment effect (the
impact in kWh or therms)
treatXpost lnteraction of treatment and post variables,
equal to I for the post-treatment period for
participants and 0 otherwise
The customer fixed effects variable for
customer i
The error term
ln Equation 3-2 the variable datly_consumptioni equals electricity or gas consumption during
the time period of interest, which would be each month of the post-treatment period. The index I
refers to each individual customer. The estimating database contained electricity and gas
consumption data during the pre- and post-treatment periods for both treatment and matched
comparison group customers. The variable posf is equal to 1 for months after installation and a
value of 0 for the same month in 2015. The treaXpost term is the interaction of treat and posf
and its coefficient B is a differences-in-differences estimator of the treatment effect that makes
use of the pre-treatment data. The primary parameter of interest is p, which provides the
estimated energy impact of the rebate programs during the relevant period. The parameter a is
equal to mean daily consumption for each customer for the relevant time period (e.9., monthly).
The vr term is the customer fixed effects variable that controls for unobserved factors that are
time-invariant and unique to each customer.
This was estimated for each month of 2016 and 2017 separately. lmpacts are estimated on a
per-customer basis. Reference consumption is equalto observed treatment consumption plus
the estimated impact.
3.4.4.3 Low lncome Pre/Post Billing Ex Post Estimation Method
For the Low lncome program, the evaluation team was unable to select a matched comparison
group as Avista does not provide information in its billing records to identify low income
customers. Therefore, the evaluation team used a pre/post billing analysis based on participant
billing data.
q
Ui
The evaluation team reviewed the participant data in the same method used for the other
programs by accessing data quality and completeness. ln addition to program participation
records and customer billing histories, the evaluation team also collected daily temperature
0 NgOnT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2015-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 33
SECTION 3 I MPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
t
SECTION 3 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
records and normalweather conditions (TMY3) from three weather stations located in Avista's
service territory. Observed temperature records were used to calculate the number of heating
degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) in each customer's monthly billing period.
Weather stations used by the evaluation team include Coeur d'Alene, ldaho; Lewiston, ldaho;
and Spokane, Washington. Each participant was matched to the nearest weather station based
on service address.
Gross verified energy savings were calculated by comparing billed consumption in months prior
to the measure installations to the billed consumption in months after the measure installations.
For most programs the evaluation team required homes to have 12 months of pre-retrofit
consumption and 12-months of post-retrofit consumption for inclusion in the billing analysis. ln
cases in which participation was limited, this requirement was relaxed to increase sample sizes,
provided that the participating homes had data from the key seasons. For example, switching
from electric heat to a natural gas furnace will produce the largest savings during winter months.
Because the evaluation team received data through February of 2018, homes who implemented
the fuel conversion measure in the summer of 2017 might have a full 12 months of pre-retrofit
data but only 6 to 8 months of postretrofit data. However, the post-retrofit period included the
heating season and gave the regression model sufficient data upon which to establish a
mathematical relationship between weather and consumption.
Table 3-6 defines the terms and coefficients shown in the two equations that follow. Equation
3-3 shows the general regression model specification used for electric measures, Equation 3-4
shows the general model specification used for gas measures. The key difference between
them is the absence of cooling degree day (CDD) terms in the gas model. Because residential
gas consumption is predominantly associated with heating, the evaluation team opted to
exclude the CDD terms from the gas model, resulting in more robust impact estimates.
Equation 3-3: Regression Model Specification for Electric Measures
kwhit=Fi*B1 xPostll*FzxCDDi1*p3(PostxCDD);,*9+xHDDir*85(PostxHDD)11*ei1
Equation 3-4: Regression Model Specification for Gas Measures
Thermsll = Pi * p, x Post16 * Bzx HDDir * B3(Post x HDD)i1* e11
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 34
IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 3-6: Fixed Effects Regression Model Definition of Terms
kWhit/ Thermsit Estimated consumption in home i during period t (dependent variable)
Postit lndicator variable denoting pre-installation period vs. post-installation period
CDDit Average cooling degree days during period t at home i
HDDit Average heating degree days during period t at home i
Customer specific model intercept representing baseline consumption
Coefficients determined via regression describing impacts associated with
independent variables
Customer-level random error
9i
9r-s
€il
Variable
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 35
SECTION 3
Definition
4 Nonresidential Impact Evaluation
This section outlines the impact evaluation methodology and findings for each of the evaluated
nonresidential programs.
4.1 Overview
Avista reported natural gas savings in six nonresidential programs in their ldaho service territory
in 2016 and 2017. The reported project count and savings for each of these programs for each
program year is summarized in Table 4-1 and Table 4-3.
Table 4-'l:2017 Nonresidential Program Reported Savings
EnergySmart Grocer 8,370
Food Service Equipment 13,588
HVAC 9,467
Commercial lnsulation 8,282
Small Business 27,404
Site Specific Conservation 804
Site Specific Fuel Conversion -13,974
Portfolio Total - Conservation Only 67,915
"lndividual measure count
Table 4-2:2016 Nonresidential Program Reported Savings
EnergySmart Grocer 200
Food Service Equipment 20,483
HVAC 3,312
Small Business 8,934
Site Specifi c Conservation 1,653
Site Specific Fuel Conversion -2,116
Portfolio Tota! - Conservation Only 34,582
.lndividual measure count
ln2017, the Small Business program contributed the largest share of the reported savings, 41%
as shown in Figure 4-1. The Food Service Equipment program contributes the second largest
share,20%.
4
20
23
6
1,405*
3
1
1,461
ldaho Gas
Nonresidential Program
2017 Reported
Project Count
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
I
21
8
2,478-
2
2
2,510
ldaho Gas
Nonresidential Program
2016 Reported
Project Count
2016 Reported
Savings (therms)
O NeXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 36
SECTION 4 NON RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 4-'l:2017 Nonresidential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares
12o/o
41o/o 20%
I4o/o
: Energysmart Grocer
r Food Service Equipment
r HVAC
Commercial lnsulation
I Small Business
r Site Speciflc Conservation
\L/OJ
The evaluation team designed a sampling strategy for these programs placing the most
emphasis on the Site Specific program because of its large share of savings seen in the 2014-
2015 biennium. As part of the evaluation activities, a total of 87 document audits were
conducted, and onsite inspections were conducted on a sub-sample of 52 projects, as shown in
Table 4-3. Engineering activities included review of savings calculation methodology and
assumptions, verification of operating hours through participant surveys and included use of
data loggers in some cases, utility bill analysis, review of energy management system trend
data, and energy savings analysis.
Table 4-3: Nonresidential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample
HVAC 0
Food Service Equipment 6
Energy Smart Grocer 6
Small Business 16
Site Specific 22
Commercial lnsulation 2
Nonresidential Total 52
80/1 3 12 6
80/1 0 11 6
80137 12 0
90/9 22 '16
8014 27 22
80/33 3 2
90/5 87 52
Natural Gas Nonresidential
Program
Achieved
Confidence/Precision
Document
Audit
Onsite
lnspectionsSurveys
O NO@nl lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Naturat Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 37
7o/o
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.2 Energy Smart Grocer
4.2.1 Overview
The Energy Smart Grocer program, implemented by CLEAResult, offers a range of proven
energy-saving solutions for grocery stores and other customers with commercial refrigeration.
This program is intended to prompt the customer to increase the energy efficiency of their
refrigerated cases and related grocery equipment through direct financial incentives.
4.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 4 unique Energy Smart Grocer measures were installed at 3 premises in ldaho in
2017.Table 4-4 and Figure 4-2 summarize Avista's 2017 Energy Smart Grocer Program
reported energy impacts by measure.
Table 4-4: EnergySmart Grocer Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Site Specific Cases 3,939
Site Specific HVAC 4,431
Total 8,370
3
1
4
Measure Type 2017 Reported
Project Count
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
O Ngfinf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 38
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
: Site Specific Cases
r Site Specific HVAC
47%
s3%
4.2.3 Methodology
Engineering activities for the evaluation of this program included review of project
documentation, installation verifi cation, and savings calculations.
4.2.3.1 Sampling Approach
The evaluation team conducted document audits on 12 projects implemented through the
Energy Smart Grocer program. Surveys and onsite inspections were conducted for a sub-
sample of these projects (Table 4-5).
Table 4-5: Energy Smart Grocer Achieved Sample
Energy Smart Grocer 6
4.2.3.2 Document Audits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including invoices, savings
calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other project records
that may exist. Thorough review of this documentation was the first crucial step in evaluation of
each project.
Document : OnSiteAudit lnspectionsProgram
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 39
Figure 4-2:2017 EnergySmart Grocer Reported Energy Savings Shares
12
SECTION 4 NON RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.2.3.3 Fieldlnspections
Participants were recruited for onsite inspection via telephone calls. The onsite inspections
provide a more rigorous way to verify energy savings, and allowed the evaluation team to note
any discrepancies between onsite findings regarding actual measure and equipment
performance and the information gathered through the project documentation review. A survey
instrument specific to this program was created in advance of the site inspections to ensure that
the correct information was gathered.
4.2.3.4 lm pact Analys is Methods
The evaluation team reviewed utility bill histories for many of the sampled projects where
appropriate. To be a good candidate for savings estimation using utility bill analysis approach, a
project must provide energy savings equal to at least 10% o'f the facility's annual consumption.
Secondly, at least 9 months but preferably 12 months of post-project utility billdata must be
available at the time of the analysis. Thirdly, conditions at the facility should be relatively static,
except for the project of interest. The installation of other energy efficiency measures or other
major changes at the facility makes billing analysis inappropriate for project-specific savings
estimation. lf a project was deemed to be a good candidate for utility bill analysis, then the
evaluation team employed IPMVP Option C to estimate energy savings, normalizing for monthly
variation in weather conditions.
ln addition, the program implementer used energy modeling to generate savings estimates for
most of the sampled Energy Smart Grocer natural gas projects. For these projects, the
evaluation team reviewed the baseline- and efficient-case models and outputs for several
criteria:
. Appropriateness of baseline model assumptions
. Calibration of baseline model output with pre-project utility bill data, if appropriate
. Consistency between efficient model assumptions and observed on-site conditions
. Agreement between efficient model output and post-project utility bill data, if possible
Based on this review process, the evaluation team made adjustments as necessary to generate
verified savings values.
4.2.4 Findings and Recommendations
The reported energy savings for these measures were generally determined using eQuest
energy simulation modeling. The evaluation team used utility billing analysis to calculate verified
energy savings values for the majority of the evaluated projects. The majority of the evaluated
savings were in-line with the reported savings value, but two projects were found to have
achieved no savings and therefore drove the realization rate for this program down
significantly. The gross verified savings values for the sample of projects resulted in a
realization rate of 42o/o for the Energy Smart Grocer program (Table 4-6).
O Nfl/f,1nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 40
SECTION 4 NON RESI DENTIAL I MPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-6: Energy Smart Grocer lmpact Energy Realization Rate Results
Energy Smart Grocer 37%
*lncludes projects in Washington and ldaho jurisdictions
The Energy Smart Grocer program is implemented by a third party. lt is recommended that for
large projects (both electric and natural gas) that Avista work more closely with the implementer
to ensure accurate reporting. ln addition, the evaluation team recommends that Avista consider
using performance-based incentives for any measures that are estimated to achieve savings of
10o/o ot more of annual natural gas consumption. For projects where eQuest model were
employed by the implementer to estimate savings, Avista should verify that the baseline eQuest
model was calibrated on a monthly basis for both gas and electric consumption.
Table 4-7 presents the 2017 gross verified savings for the Energy Smart Grocer program
Table 4-7: Energy Smart Grocer Gross Verified Savings
Smart Grocer 3,509
4,3 Commercial Insulation
4.3.1 Overview
This program offers incentives to Avista's nonresidential customers to improve the envelope of
their building by adding additional insulation. The program is implemented internally by Avista.
4.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 6 unique Commercial lnsulation measures were installed at 6 premises in ldaho in
2017.Table 4-8 summarizes Avista's2017 Commercial lnsulation Program reported energy
impacts.
Table 4-8: Commercial lnsulation Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Commercial lnsulation 8,282
4.3.3 Methodology
Engineering activities for the evaluation of this program included review of project
documentation, installation verification, determination of operational hours, and savings
calculations.
12 42%
Sample Unique
Projects*
Energy
Realization
Rate
Relative Precision
(80% Confidence)Program
8,370 42%
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Program
2017 Reported
Participation
2017 Reported Energy
Savings (therms)Program
O NgXOm lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 41
Energy Realization
Rate
:nergy
6
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.3.3.1 SamplingApproach
The evaluation team conducted document audits on 3 projects implemented through the
Commercial lnsulation program. Onsite inspections were conducted for 2 of these projects
(Table 4-9). lt should be noted that in the development of the Evaluation Plan, target document
audits and onsite inspections were not planned for this program and projects were added during
the evaluation period as projects with therm savings were reported through the program
(projects were dualfuel measures with both electric and natural gas savings).
Table 4-9: Commercial lnsulation Achieved Sample
Commercial lnsulation 2
4.3.3.2 DocumentAudits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including invoices, savings
calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other project records
that may exist.
4.3.3.3 Fieldlnspections
Telephone surveys were used to recruit projects for onsite inspection verification. The onsite
inspections provide a more rigorous way to verify energy savings, and allowed the evaluation
team to note any discrepancies between onsite findings regarding actual measure and
equipment performance and the information gathered through the project documentation review.
A survey instrument specific to this program was created in advance of the site inspections to
ensure that the correct information was gathered.
Table 4-10 summarizes the information that was collected for each project during the onsite
inspection. All parameters needed to support the savings analysis of a project were collected,
including the square footage of wall or attic areas affected by the project and the associated
HVAC system characteristics.
3 2
Document
Audit
OnSite
lnspectionsProgramSurvey
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 42
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-10: Commercial lnsulation Onsite Data Collection
Year of construction
Business Type
Number of occupants
Number of floors
Operating Hours, posted or otherwise
Total conditioned square footage
All Facilities
HVAC
Where:
/t 1\t- _
-l
\Rpre Rpost)
Type
Age
Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Temperatures
Control Capability / Strategy
Features
Building Envelope
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
Affected Wall / Attic Area (sq ft)
4.3.3.4 !mpact Analysis Methods
An industry-standard relationship for insulation improvements was applied to analyze all
projects in the evaluated sample for this program. Natural gas savings occur during the heating
season only for these measures, and savings were calculated using Equation 4-1.
Equation 4-1: Commercial lnsulation Heating Savings Calculation
Lthermsposino
x Area x24 xHDD
Oheat X 100,000
= Pre- and Post-improvement R-values of insulation
= Affected area (sq ft).
= Annualcooling degree days
= Heating system efficiency
Rpre and post
Aamc
HDD
Ilrreat
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 43
Type (e.9., DX, heat pump)
Age
Heating & Cooling Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Temperatures (space,
supply, return, including info on
setbacks)
Control Capability / Strategy
Other Features (e.9. economizer)
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
End Use Category Baseline Retrofit
SECTION 4 NON RESI DENTIAL I MPACT EVALUATION
4.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
The data collected as a result of the desk reviews and onsite verification activities were utilized
to estimate the gross verified energy savings for each sampled project. The gross verified
savings values for the sample of projects resulted in a realization rate of 142o/o for the
Commercial lnsulation program (Table 4-11).
Table 4-11: Commercial Insulation lmpact Energy Realization Rate Results
Commercial lnsulation
Avista's savings values for the measures in this program are generated using the same
algorithm as the evaluation team. However, Avista's baseline R-values for insulation measures
are more conservative in many cases. Avista's baseline values reflect minimum R-values as
stipulated by energy codes. The evaluation team also applied code-based minimum R-values
where the project was part of a major renovation, new construction, or building addition. For
standalone projects installed separate from other major renovations, the evaluation team
calculated savings based on the actual pre-retrofit insulation R-values. Thus, the verified
savings for most standalone projects were higher than what Avista reported, resulting in the
program realization rate of 142o/o.
Table 4-12 presents the 2017 gross verified savings for the Commercial lnsulation program.
Table 4-12: Commercial lnsulation Gross Verified Savings
Commercial lnsulation 11,735
4.4 Natural Gas HVAC
4.4.1 Overview
This program offers incentives to Avista's nonresidential customers to improve the efficiency of
their buildings' heating systems by upgrading to new high-efficiency gas equipment. The
program is implemented internally by Avista.
4.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Study
A total of 23 unique Natural Gas HVAC measures were installed at 23 premises in ldaho in
2017.Table 4-13 summarizes Avista's 2017 Natural Gas HVAC Program reported energy
impacts.
33%3 142o/o
Sample Unique
Projects
Energy
Realization Rate
Relative Precision
(80% Gonfidence)Program
8,282 142o/o
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
Energy
Realization Rate
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Program
O NOQfiT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 44
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL I MPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-13: Natural Gas HVAC Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Natural Gas HVAC 9,467
4.4.3 Methodology
Engineering activities for the evaluation of this program included review of project
documentation and savings calculations.
4.4.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team conducted document audits on 12 projects implemented through the
Natural Gas HVAC program (Table 4-14). Surveys and on-site inspections were not conducted
for this program.
Table 4-14: NaturalGas HVAC Achieved Sample
Natural Gas HVAC
4.4.3.2 DocumentAudits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including invoices, savings
calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other project records
that may exist.
4.4.3.3 lmpact Analysis Methods
The evaluation team applied an industry-standard relationshipll for heating system efficiency
improvements to all projects in the evaluated sample for this program, as listed in Equation 4-2.
Equation 4-2: Natural Gas HVAC Savings Calculation
L,therms1rroting = Capocityin ut-e X EFLH"-inssar"" "\ffi- |
Where
Capacityinput-e = peok heating input capacity of both the baseline and installed unit
EFLH"-in"t"rr"d = effective full-load hours of the installed high efficiency unit
AFUE" = annual fuel utilization efficiency of the high efficiency unit
11 Uniform Methods Protocol - Residential Furnaces and Boilers Evaluation Protocol. Available from
http://energy. govisites/prod/files 1201 31 1 1 ltsl 53827 -5.pdt.
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 45
2017 Reported
Participation
2017 Reported Energy
Savings (therms)Program
Program Document
Audit
OnSite
lnspections
23
12
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
AFUEI = annual fuel utilization efficiency of the baseline or code-compliant
standard efficiency unit
4.4.4 Findings and Recommendations
The data collected as a result of the desk reviews were utilized to estimate the gross verified
energy savings for each sampled project. The gross verified savings values for the sample of
projects resulted in a realization rate of 124% for the Natural Gas HVAC program (Table 4-15)
Table 4-15: Natural Gas HVAC lmpact Energy Realization Rate Results
Natural Gas HVAC 13%
Table 4-16 presents the 2017 gross verified savings for the Natural Gas HVAC program.
Table 4-15: Natural Gas HVAC Gross Verified Savings
Natural Gas HVAC 11,752
4.5 Food Service Equipment
4.5.1 Overview
This program offers incentives for commercial customers who purchase or replace food service
equipment with Energy Star or higher equipment (prescriptive).
4.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 20 unique measures were installed at 20 premises in ldaho through the Food Service
Equipment program in2017. Table 4-17 summarizes Avista's 2017 reporled energy impacts for
this program.
Table 4-'17: Food Service Equipment Reported Energy Savings
Food Service Equipment 13,588
4.5.3 Methodology
Engineering activities for the evaluation of these projects varied by measure and included
review of project documentation, review of relevant RTF deemed savings values and
workbooks, installation verification, determination of operational hours, and savings calculations.
12 124o/o
Sample Unique
Projects
Energy Realization
Rate
Relative Precision
(80% Confidence)Program
9,467 124%
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
Energy Realization
Rate
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Program
2017 Reported
Participation
2017 Reported Energy
Savings (therms)Measure Type
O Nf,|@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 46
20
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.5.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team conducted document audits for 11 Food Service Equipment projects (Table
4-18). Onsite inspections were conducted for 6 projects.
Table 4-18: Food Service Equipment Achieved Sample
Food Service Equipment
4.5.3.2 Document Audits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including invoices, savings
calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other project records
that may exist. Thorough review of this documentation was the first crucial step in evaluation of
each project.
4.5.3.3 lmpact Analysis Methods
For ENERGY STAR-rated kitchen equipment, the evaluation team evaluated the energy savings
for each project in the sample using ENERGY STAR's Commercial Kitchen Equipment
calculatorl2. For categories of kitchen equipment not covered by ENERGY STAR, the evaluation
team used other third-party sources and studies to evaluate energy impacts.
4.5.4 Findings and Recommendations
Table 4-19 presents the realization rate based on the gross verified savings values for the
sample of reviewed projects in the Food Service Equipment program.
Table 4-19: Food Service Equipment Realization Rate Results
Food Service Equipment 1lYo
Avista's deemed energy savings for this program are also derived from ENERGY STAR's
published calculator. However, the evaluation team customized the inputs to the calculator for
the specific rates of the equipment in the evaluation sample. This customization resulted yielded
a program-wide realization rate of 105%.
Table 4-20 shows the total gross verified savings for the Food Service Equipment program in
2017.
6
12 Found on the following website: https://www.enerqvstar.oov/oroducts/commercial food service equioment
Ll NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 47
Program Document
Audit
OnSite
lnspections
11 105%
Energy
Realization Rate
Relative Precision
(80% Confidence)Program
11
Sample Unique lProjects :
SECTION 4 NON RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-20: Food Service Equipment Gross Verified Savings
Food Service Equipment 14,301
4.6 Site Specific
4.6.1 Overview
Avista's Site Specific program offers commercial customers the opportunity to propose any
energy efficiency project with documentable energy savings (kilowatt-hours and/or therms) for
an incentive. The majority of natural gas projects in this program are appliance upgrades,
HVAC, industrial process, and shell measures. The Site Specific program is implemented
internally by Avista, and program staff develops custom energy savings estimates for each
project with input from the customer.
4.6.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 4 unique measures were installed through the Site Specific program in ldaho in 2017.
Table 4-21 and Figure 4-3 summarize Avista's reported energy impacts by measure for the Site
Specific program.
Table 4-21: Site Specific Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Appliances
Shell 453
Multifamily Fuel
Conversion -13,974
Total -13,170
Total without Fuel
Conversion 804
351
13,588 105%
2017 Reported Savings
(therms)
Energy Realization
Rate
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(therms)
Program
1
2
1
4
3
2017 Reported Project
Count
2017 Reported Energy
Savings (therms)Measure Type
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 48
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 4-3: Site Specific Reported Participation Energy Savings Shares
56%
r Appliances r Shell
4.6.3 Methodology
The impact evaluation for this program followed IPMVP guidance as well as the DOE Uniform
Method Protocol(s). Engineering activities included thorough review of the program savings
methodology for each project, installation verification, determination of operational hours,
collection of energy management system (EMS) trend data, and associated energy savings
calculations.
4.6.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team conducted 27 document audits on participating projects through the Site
Specific program. Customer surveys and onsite inspections were conducted on a subset of
these projects. Within the Site Specific program, the evaluation team designated projects into
two strata based on conservation-only projects and fuel conversion projects. Table 4-22 outlines
the achieved sample for the Site Specific Program.
Table 4-22: Site Specific Achieved Sample
Site Specific - Conservation 18
Site Specific - Fuel Conversion 4
Total 22
*Note that sample count includes both Washington and ldaho Jurisdictions
4.6.3.2 DocumentAudits
Project documentation was requested for each sampled project, including Avista's'Top Sheets',
invoices, savings calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and any other
project records that may exist. The evaluation team's desk review process for Site Specific
projects included tracking the history of each project through the various stages of the program
23
4
27
Program -Measure Type Document
Audit*
On Site
lnspections"
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 49
SECTION 4 NONRESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
as documented in the "Top Sheets". Thorough review of this documentation was the first crucial
step in evaluation of each project.
For projects where Avista estimated savings using energy modeling software such as eQuest,
the evaluation team requested and reviewed the energy models.
4.6.3.3 Fieldlnspections
Participants were recruited for onsite inspection via telephone calls. The onsite inspections
provide a more rigorous way to verify energy savings, and allowed the evaluation team to note
any discrepancies between onsite findings regarding actual measure and equipment
performance and the information gathered through the project documentation review. Because
of the wide variety of measures included in this evaluation, project-specific survey instruments
were generated in advance of each onsite inspection to ensure that sufficient information was
gathered to support the analysis of each measure.
Table 4-23 summarizes the types of information that were collected for each project during the
onsite inspection. All parameters needed to support the savings analysis of a project were
collected.
O NgXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 50
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-23: Site Specific Onsite Data Collection
All Facilities
Year of construction
Business Type
Number of occupants
Number of floors
Operating Hours, posted or otherwise
Total conditioned squarc footage
HVAC
Type
Age
Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Tem peratures
Control Capability / Strategy
Features
Building Envelope
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
Affected Wall / Attic Area (sq ft)
Appliances
Manufacturer
ModelNumber
Efficiency
4.6.3.4 Project-Specific Bil I i ng Analysis
The evaluation team reviewed utility bill histories for several projects where appropriate. To be a
good candidate for savings estimation using utility bill analysis approach, a project must provide
energy savings equalto at least 1A% of the facility's annual consumption. Secondly, at least 9
months but preferably 12 months of post-project utility bill data must be available at the time of
the analysis. Thirdly, conditions at the facility should be relatively static, except for the project of
interest. The installation of other energy efficiency measures or other major changes at the
facility makes billing analysis inappropriate for project-specific savings estimation. lf a project
was deemed to be a good candidate for utility bill analysis, then the evaluation team employed
IPMVP Option C to estimate energy savings, normalizing for monthly variation in weather
conditions.
Type (e.9., DX, heat pump)
Age
Heating & Cooling Capacity
Efficiency
Operating Hours
Operating Tem peratures (space,
supply, return, including info on
setbacks)
Control Capability / Strategy
Other Features (e.9. economizer)
lnsulation Type
lnsulation Thickness
End Use Category Baseline Retrofit
4.6.3.5 Project-Specific Trend Data Analysis
The evaluation team incorporated project-specific trend data for some projects in the evaluation
sample in accordance with IPMVP Option B. Trend data was collected from building energy
management systems or other on-site data collection systems whenever available. The period
of data collection varied depending on the type of project being evaluated and ranged from a
few weeks to several months as available.
L, NOOfiI lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 51
SECTION 4 NON RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
4.5.3.6 Project-Specific Energy Modeli n g Analys is
Avista used eQuest energy modeling to generate savings estimates for the majority of the Site
Specific natural gas projects in the evaluation sample. For these projects, the evaluation team
reviewed the baseline- and efficient-case eQuest models and outputs for several criteria:
. Appropriateness of baseline model assumptions
. Calibration of baseline model output with pre-project utility bill data, if appropriate
. Consistency between efficient model assumptions and observed on-site conditions
. Agreement between efficient model output and post-project utility bill data, if possible
Based on this review process, the evaluation team made adjustments to the provided eQuest
models as necessary to generate verified savings values.
4.6.3.7 A! gorith m -Based I m pact Analys is Methods
Because of the custom nature of the projects that participated in the Site Specific program, a
wide array of custom analysis methods were utilized and tailored to each individual project.
Most projects in the evaluated sample were analyzed using utility bill analysis, energy modeling,
or a custom savings analysis. ln many cases, if the evaluation team agreed with the program
team's savings methodology, then the evaluation team used the same methodology for the
project evaluation, updating only the input values and assumptions based on the results of
onsite inspections or other data collection. ln some cases, the evaluation team used a different
methodology, especially where billing data or trend data allowed for savings to be calculated
from measured data.
The evaluation team utilized an algorithm-based analysis for some Site Specific Shell projects,
as described in the methodology section for the Commercial lnsulation Program (Section
4.3.3.4)
4.6.4 Findings and Recommendations
The evaluation team found that the 2016-2017 Site Specific program achieved a program-level
realization rate of 113% for conversation-only measures and 133% for fuel conversion
measures (Table 4-24). These realization rates reflect the high level of review that is conducted
through Avista's internal processes.
Table 4-24: Site Specific Program Realization Rate Results
Site Specific - Conservation 4o/o
Site Specific - Fuel Conversion
Measure-level realization rates for measures where more than one project was included in the
evaluation sample are presented in Table 4-25.
nla
23 113%
4 133%
Sample Unique
Projects
Energy
Realization Rate
Relative Precision
(80% Confidence)Program
O N€xl0nf tmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 201 6-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 52
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL I MPACT EVALUATION
4
6
4
11
Measure Sample Unigue Projects Realization Rate
Table 4-25: Site Specific Measure-Level Gross Verified Savings
HVAC Combined 93%
HVAC 172o/o
Multifamily - fuel conversion 133o/o
Shell 108Yo
HVAC Heating and HVAC Combined Findings
The evaluation team found Avista to be using conservative assumptions in several of the
reviewed HVAC Heating and HVAC Combined measures, resulting in high realization rates.
Avista's energy savings estimates for these measures were primarily developed using internal
calculators or customized eQuest energy modeling. The evaluation team reviewed the
assumptions underlying Avista's estimates in comparison to conditions found during on-site
visits. The high realization rates for these measures resulted from a variety of different project-
specific findings. For example, savings for one radiant heating project were estimated using
eQuest. The evaluation team evaluated this project using engineering algorithms because
eQuest cannot model radiant heat transfer well. The evaluation team's algorithm approach
indicated high savings than the original Avista estimate.
Shell Findings
The evaluation team did not find any significant discrepancies in the evaluated sample of Shell
projects. Nexant and Avista applied similar algorithms for these projects. The projectlevel
realization rates for all projects in the evaluated sample were near 100o/o.
Table 4-26 shows the total gross verified savings for the Site Specific program for ldaho
Table 4-26: Site Specific Gross Verified Savings
Site Specific -911
4.7 Small Business Program
4.7.1 Overview
The Small Business (SB) program is a third-party-administered (SBW Consulting), direct
installation/audit program, providing customer energy efficiency opportunities by:
1) Directly installing appropriate energy-saving measures at each target site
2) Conducting a brief onsite audit to identify customer opportunities and interest in existing
Avista programs
804 113%
2017 Reported Savings
(therms)Energy Realization Rate 2017 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Program
O N9/oinf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 53
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
3) Providing materials and contact information so that customers are able to follow up with
additional energy efficiency measures under existing programs.
Direct-install measures include:
. Faucet aerators
. Showerheads
. Pre-rinse spray valves
. Screw-in LEDs
. Smart power strips
. CoolerMisers
. VendingMisers
The evaluation team conducted onsite verification, documentation audits, and engineering
analysis to determine verified gross savings for each measure in the program.
4.7.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A total of 1,405 individual measures were installed at approximately 226 unique premises
through the Small Business program in ldaho in 2017 . Table 4-27 and Figure 4-4 summarize
Avista's reported energy impacts by measure for the Small Business program.
Table 4-27: Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings by Measure
Showerheads 3,060
Spray Valve 3,709
Faucet Aerators 20,635
Total 27,404
169
58
1,178
1,405
2017 Reported
lndividual
Measure Gount
2017 Reported
Gas Savings
(therms)
Measure
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 54
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 4-4: Small Business Program Reported Energy Savings Shares
77%
I Showerheads
r Spray Valve
I Faucet Aerators
4.7.3 Methodology
The gross program energy impacts for the Small Business program were evaluated through a
combination of documentation audits and onsite inspections of a representative sample of
completed program projects.
4.7.3.1 Sampling
The evaluation team selected a simple random sample of 22 projects for the impact evaluation
of the Small Business Program. Onsite verification was performed for 16 sites. The 22 sampled
project sites collectively accounted for a total of 187 unique natural gas saving measures, as
reported by the program implementer. Table 4-28 summarizes the achieved sample size.
Table 4-28: Small Business Program lmpact Evaluation Achieved Sample
Small Business 't6
4.7.3.2 Document Audits
The evaluation team conducted a review of the project documentation for each sampled project,
including invoices, savings calculations, work order forms, equipment specification sheets, and
any other project records that may exist.
4.7.3.3 Onsite lnspections
The impact evaluation activities included telephone surveys, documentation audits, and onsite
inspections for the entire sample. A telephone survey served as an introduction to the
evaluation activities and was used to confirm that the customer participated in the program,
Program Document Audit On-Site
Verification
L, N9nnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs 55
75%
22
SECTION 4 NON RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
confirm the appropriate contact, and to verify basic information such as building type and
building size. Arrangements for onsite inspections were then made during the telephone survey
The onsite inspections were used to determine whether:
. The measure tracking database correctly represented the work that was done at each
site
. The measures remained installed and were operational
. There were any opportunities for measure installation that were missed
Field engineers were equipped with a custom field data collection tool designed to capture the
relevant data points for each measure included in the program. Table 4-29 summarizes the
information that was collected for each measure type during the onsite inspection. All
parameters needed to support the savings analysis of a project were collected, including, but
not limited to, counts, hours of operation, and water heater fuel type.
Table 4-29: Small Business Program Onsite Data Collection
All Facilities
Number of occupants
Business Type
Operating Hours, posted or otherwise
Water Heater Type (Tank or Tankless)
Water Heater Fuel Type (Natural Gas or Electric)
Faucet Aerators
Pre-rinse Sprayers
Showerheads
Quantity of Efficient Fixtures/Aerators I nstalled
Quantity of Efficient Fixtures/Aerators Decomm issioned
Device Flow Rate
Water Heater Type
Facility Hot Water Load
4.7.3.4 !mpact Analysis Methods
The evaluation team estimated gross verified savings using the field verified quantities and the
program-specified deemed savings value for each measure. The deemed savings values used
by the program originate from a variety of sources including (UES) measures from the Regional
Technical Forum (RTF), California DEER databasel3, and the findings of the 2014-2015
evaluation. Verified energy savings were generally calculated for each measure using Equation
4-3:
Equation 4-3: Small Business Program Energy Savings Calculation
ATherms - QuantttyVerif ied xThermSaued/Untt
Where:
1 3 http://www.deeresources.com/
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 201 6-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs
Measure Type Key Parameters
56
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Quantity Verified = Quantity of devices/fixtures verified onsite
Therm Saved = Program-stipulated electric energy (Therms) saved per unit
installed
4.7.4 Findings and Recommendations
The gross verified electric energy savings for the sample of reviewed projects for the Small
Business program resulted in a realization rate ol 1060/o (Table 4-30).
Table 4-30: Small Business Program Realization Rate Summary
Faucet Aerators
Showerheads 9o/o
Spray Valve
Total 9%
The evaluation team found a greater than 100% realization rate for the majority of gas
measures assessed. The evaluation team understands that the Small Business program
implementer applied the realization rates and decommissioned rates from the 2014-2015
evaluation to the deemed savings values noted in Avista's Technical Reference manual. The
evaluation team utilized the deemed savings value per measure and applied the persistence
rate found during the current evaluation to the TRM value, therefore resulting in a gross verified
savings values greater than the reported values. ln summary, the Small Business program
implementer improved their tracking of decommissioned measures in the 2016-2017 biennium.
The following subsection outlines the persistence rates found for the current evaluation.
4.7.4.1 lnstallation Persistence
The program implementer keeps track of measures that are decommissioned by program
participants, when program participants inform the implementer that they have removed
measures. The evaluation team evaluated the persistence of measures installed for program
participants, or the percent of measures that were removed by participants wherein the
implementer was not informed of the removal. Table 4-31 provides a summary of the reported
installation quantities, the verified installation quantities, and the persistence rate for all
measures where greater than 10 measure quantities were evaluated. Overall, the program had
a high persistence rate with 98% of the total quantity of measures still installed at the time of the
evaluation activities. Spray valves are not included in the installation persistence calculation due
to the low count included in the sample.
157 105o/o
22 90o/o
8 116%
187 106%
Sampled
Measures
Gas Energy
Realization
Rate
Relative
Precision (90%
Confidence)
Measure Gategory
O NO/0iIIT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 57
SECTION 4 NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 4-31: Small Business lnstallation Persistence
Faucet Aerator (0.5 GPM)100%
Faucet Aerator (1.0 GPM)92%
Showerhead 95%
Overall 98%
*lncludes measures associated with both gas and electric savings
Table 4-32 shows the total gross verified savings for the Small Business Program in total.
Table 4-32: Small Business Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
Small Business 28,975
4.8 Nonresidential Sector Results Summary
Table 4-33 lists the gross verified savings for each of Avista's nonresidential programs in ldaho
in 2017 . The ldaho gas nonresidential sector achieved a 106% realization rate in 2017 and the
relative precision of the program-level natural gas realization rate was t5% at the 90%
confidence level.
Table 4-33: Nonresidential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
EnergySmart Grocer 3,509
Food Service Equipment 14,301
HVAC 11,752
Commercial lnsulation 11,735
Small Business 28,975
Site Specifi c Conservation 911
Site Specific Fuel Conversion -18,622
Nonresidential Total - Conservation Only 71,182
120 120
37 34
22 21
'179 175
Sample
Reported
Quantity*
Persistence
RateMeasure
27,404 1060/o
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
8,370 42o/o
13,588 1O5o/o
9,467 124o/o
8,282 142o/o
27,404 1060/o
804 113o/o
-13,974 133o/o
67,915 105o/o
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Verified
Gross Savings
(therms)
Program Realization Rate
0 NO@fiT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 58
Sample Verified
Quantity
5 Residential Impact Evaluation
The following sections outline the impact evaluation methodology and findings for each of the
evaluated residential programs and the low income program.
5.1 Overview
Avista offered four natural gas incentive-based residential programs and the low income
program in their ldaho service territory in 2017. The reported savings for these residential
programs are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Residential Program Reported Savings
HVAC 146,043
ENERGY STAR Homes 406
Shell 15,132
Water Heat Program*'t9,372
Low lncome Conservation 5,301
Conservation Total 186,254
Fuel Efficiency (Fuel Conversion)-1 18,905
Low lncome Fuel Conversion -11,453
Fuel Convercion Total -130,358
*lncludes counts for both projects and
The Shell and HVAC programs collectively contributed 87o/o of the reported savings, as shown
in Figure 5-1.
Program 2017 Reported Savings
(therms)
O NeXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 59
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-1: Residential Program Reported Energy Savings Shares (Conservation Only)
lOlo 3%
r HVAC
ENERGY STAR Homes
r Shell
r Water Heat Program*
I Low lncome Conservation
The evaluation team designed a sampling strategy for these programs placing the most
emphasis on the programs with the highest projected savings and the highest level of
uncertainty. As part of the evaluation activities, a total of 521 document audits and 87 telephone
surveys were conducted, as shown in Table 5-2. Engineering activities included review of
savings calculation methodology and assumptions, utility bill analysis and energy savings
analysis.
Table 5-2: Residential Program Achieved Evaluation Sample
HVAC Program
Water Heat Program
ENERGY STAR Homes
Fuel Efficiency
Shell Program
Low lncome
Residential Total
5.2 HVAC Program
5.2.1 Overview
Avista internally manages the HVAC program which encourages the implementation of high
efficiency HVAC equipment and smart thermostats through direct incentives issued to the
o%
i
9017 159 44
90/1 3 63
90144 15
90t14 76
90111 75 43
90t57 133
90/6 521 87
Natural Gas Residential
Program
Achieved
ctP
Billing
AnalysisSurveys
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs 60
8%
79%
Document
Audit
I
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
customer after the measure has been installed. The evaluation team used a combination of
desk reviews, customer telephone surveys and billing analysis to estimate the gross-verified
savings for the applicable measures and the program as a whole.
5.2.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation and energy impacts as a result of the 2017 HVAC program are summarized in
Table 5-3 and Figure 5-2 below.
Table 5-3: HVAC Program Reported Participation and Savings
G Boiler 1,336
G Furnace 128,137
G Smart Thermostat 16,570
TOTAL 146,043
Figure 5-2:2017 HVAC Program Reported Participation Energy Saving Shares
TT.3%0.9%
I G Boiler
r G Furnace
r G Smart Thermostat
87.7%
5.2.3 Methodology
The evaluation team investigated measures under the residential HVAC program separately,
but utilized similar methods across multiple measures. The following two measure categories
were analyzed:
. High Efficiency Natural Gas Furnace and Boilers
. Smart Thermostat
13
1,243
463
1,719
20{7 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported Savings
(Therms)Measure
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 61
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
The evaluation team conducted approximately '159 document audits and telephone surveys with
HVAC program participants. As discussed in 3.4, telephone surveys and document audits were
conducted to confirm participation in the program, confirm efficiency levels of installed
equipment as applicable, check that Avista reported data matched project files and that Avista is
reporting the correct savings value for each applicable measure as noted in their Technical
Reference Manual (TRM). The evaluation team also conducted a review of Avista's complete
2016 and 2017 program databases to check for errors in measure-level reporting.
5.2.3.1 Program billing analysis
As discussed in Section 3.4.4.1, the evaluation team developed a matched comparison group to
HVAC participants in order to conduct a difference-in-differences fixed-effects panel regression
analysis. Gross verified energy savings are estimated as the difference in average consumption
between treatment and comparison customers in each month during the pre- and post-
treatment periods. Upon review of the billing data, the evaluation team found participants
averaged approximately 831 therms annual consumption during the pre-treatment period. We
identified nonparticipants with similar consumption profiles to comprise the matched comparison
group used in our analysis. Our final model observed data for 802 participants who only
participated in the HVAC program.
5.2.4 Findings and Recommendations
The document audits uncovered two minor discrepancies between details reported in the Avista
database and documented in program participant files. Adjusting to the corrected values
effectively cancelled each other out and did not affect reported program savings.
Table 5-4 outlines the program reported and gross verified savings value for the HVAC
program. The evaluation team found a 133% realization rate across the entire HVAC program
The relative precision of the program-level realization rate was 16.8% at the 90% confidence
level.
The high realization rate reflects both a vast majority of participation in high efficient gas
furnaces, aswellas relatively lowreported savings perparticipant. The program saw 1,719
measures rebated to 1 ,452 customers in 2017 which is an average reported savings of 101
therms per participant. However, the results of the billing analysis found an average savings per
participant of 134 therms. Figure 5-3 below illustrates program impacts observed in the 2017
program year and, as expected, clearly indicate the heating season as the primary driver of
program savings.
0 Ner@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 62
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-3: HVAC post-treatment consumption
Table 5-4: HVAC Program Gross Verified Savings
1,452 194,247
5.3 Water Heat Program
5.3.1 Overview
The evaluation team's assessment of the Water Heat program included analysis and verification
of gas water heating-related measures offered by Avista including gas water heaters (storage
and tankless) and showerheads. The water heater measures were rebated14 through Avista's
Water Heat program. Showerhead incentives were offered through the Simple Steps upstream
program.
5.3.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
A summary of participation and resulting energy impacts from the 2017 Waler Heat program is
presented below in Table 5-5 and Figure 5-4.
1a Storage water heaters \/ere not incentivized in the 2O16-20'17 program cycle, however rebates and savings for storage water
heaters occuned in Q1 20'16 as spillover from the prior cycle and are accounted for in this evaluation report.
-Qsntlel -Treatment200
180
160
740
L20
100
80
60
40
20
0
E
os
.>-cco
=ooo(E
o
""${.i-1.i"i.$$$$$/
146,043 101 133o/o 134
2017 Gross
Verified
Average
Savings per
Participant
(therms)
Realization Rate
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(therms)
2017 Reported
Participation
Count
2017 Reported
Savings
(therms)
0 NgOnT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 63
2017 Reported
Average
Savings per
Participant
(therms)
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-5:2017 Water Heat Reported Participation and Savings
Gas Tankless Water Heater 17,634
Simple Steps Showerheads*1,738
TOTAL 19,372
.5, 1.75, and 2.0 gpm low showerheads
Figure 5-4:2017 Water Heat Program Reported Participation Energy Saving Shares
I Gas Tankless Water Heater
r Simple Steps Showerheads
5.3.3 Methodology
The evaluation team performed verification of the program measures through a review of
sampled project documentation and phone survey responses with program participantsls. Our
review was designed to confirm the program tracking database was aligned with both project
documentation and survey data. The following subsections outline the methodology for the
water heaters and low flow showerheads.
5.3.3.1 Water Heaters
The evaluation team leveraged the data collected from the project documentation and phone
surveysl5 along with parameter assumptions sourced from Technical Reference Manuals and
published reports to conduct an engineering analysis to estimate savings for the tankless water
heaters. Specifically, the following data was reviewed from these sources:
Energy factor of the replaced and new water heater
1s Th" 2016-2017 evaluation's weighted sampling approach did not specifically target water heat participants, however 27
participants targeted for the sample also reported having installed a water heat related measure during the evaluation timeframe.
255
449
704
2017 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported
Savings (Therms)Measure
O NQ|@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 64
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Average daily hot water usage per person
Number of household occupants
Water heater set points
The evaluation team used the reported age of the replaced water heater from the 2014-2015
impact survey results to estimate the baseline energy factor. The 2014-2015 participant
responses reported an average age 13.7 years for gas water heaters. Based on this average
age, we applied the 2004 federal standard as the baseline energy factor. The evaluation team
adjusted the energy factor based on the data presented in Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 below.
Figure 5-5: Federal Standards for Natural Gas Storage Water Heaters
o
t
It
ut
0.8t
0.r6
0.70
0.86
0.60
0.5,5
o.D[
OilS
0.{0 30 35 {0 {5 50 55 50 65
Volumr in Grllom
70 75 80 85 90
-
ENERGyS,TAH
-
fedorslStsnd.td
?01 5
** Fedsrrl Stondordzo0{
-
Fedoral Slondlrdt9go
Figure 5-6: 2004 Federa! Standards for Natural Gas Tankless Water Heaters
The evaluation team estimated savings for water heaters using Equation 5-1. The parameters
and source for each parameter is identified in Table 5-6:
Equation 5-1: Water Heater Energy Savings Galculation
LTherms =
(#
",r- - *h) " (e r o x 3 65.2 5 x D en x c, x (T emp ouret - T emp / ;n1"))
100,000
1.2
oatlonslnstantaneous
Gas-fired Water
Heater
Volunre in
. Rated = 0 82-(0.0019 ' Rated Storage Volume in gallons),
O1 NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 65
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-6: Water Heater Parameters and Data Sources
Participant survey datalPeople
Hot water usage per day
per person (GPD)
Days
Outlet water temperature
(F')
Secondary Sourcel6
Conversion Factor (daylyr)
Secondary sourcelT
lnlet water temperature
(F")
E Fbasetine Participant survey data2
E Fretrofit-tanldess 0.75-00.91, Calculated per-unit using program
documentation
CP Constant (BTU/b)
Den Constant (lb/gal)
lAverage for 27 sampled participants that had installed a high efficiency water heater,
2Sourced lrom 2074-2015 evaluation cycle water heat impact survey results
The evaluation team calculated verified energy savings for each tankless water heater as this
measure type accounts for 91% of program savings. Tank water heaters were assigned the
realization rate from the prior evaluation cycle as they were legacy measures from the 2015
program year.
5.3.3.2 Low Flow Showerheads
The evaluation team estimated savings from low flow showerheads following Equation 5-2 and
the parameters and source for each identified in Table 5-7:
Equation 5-2: Low Flow Showerhead Energy Savings Calculation
LTherms =
P eople x Shower T ime x D ays x o/oDoys x AGP M x (Trno*", - Tn) x D en x Cu
EF x 100,000 x Showerheads
Where:
People
Shower Time
Days
= the number of people taking showers (ppl/household)
= the average shower length (min/shower)
= the number of days per year (day/yr)
1 6 http://www.waterrf .org/PublicReportlibrary/43OgA.pdf
17 DeOreo, William, P. Mayer, L. Martien, M. Hayden, A. Funk, M. Kramer-Duffield, and R. Davis (2011\. "California
Single-Family Water Use"
18 httos://www3.eoa.qov/ceamoubl/learn2model/oart-two/onsite/e/ine henrys map.html
2.890
15.744
365.2s
'135
52
0.52
Range
1
8.33
ValueParameter Source
O NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 66
Secondary sourcelS
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
o/oDays = the number of showers per day, per person (shower/day-ppl)
AGPM = the difference in gallons per minute for the base showerhead
and the new showerhead (gal/min)
TSHOWER = the average water temperature at the showerhead (oF)
TIN = the average inlet water temperature (oF)
CP = the specific water heat (BTU/lb-oF)
Den = the water density (lb/gal)
100,000 = the conversion rate between BTU and therm
EF = the water heater's energy factor
Total# of Showerheads = the number of showerheads per home
Table 5-7: Low FIow Showerhead Parameters and Data Sources
People Participant survey datal
Baseline Gallons per Minute Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
Efficient Gallons per Minute Given per Measure
Shower Time RTF
Days Conversion Factor (day/yr)
%Days RTF
AGPM Program data (efficient case); RTF (baseline
case)
Outlet water temperature (F')Secondary sourcele
lnlet water temperature (F")Secondary source2o
EFbasetine Participant survey data
E Fretrofi!storage Program documentation
E Fretrofiltankless Program documentation
CP Constant (BTU/Ib-oF)
Den Constant (lb/gal)
Number of Showerheads U.S. 2010 Census, Regional Technical Form
lAverage for sampled participants.
1e Deoreo, William, P. Mayer, L. Martien, M. Hayden, A. Funk, M. Kramer-Duffield, and R. Davis (2011). "California
Single-Family Water Use
20 httos://www3.eoa.oov/ceamoubl/learn2model/part-two/onsite/ex/ine henrvs mao.html
2.890
2.3
1.5-1.75
8.06
365
0.68
0.3,0.55,0.7, 0.8
135
52
0.52
0.62
0.91
1
8.33
1.91
ValueTerm Source
Ct NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 67
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Because the showerheads were either distributed via an upstream program, the evaluation
team assumed an installation rate of 1.0.
Per unit savings were estimated based on these parameter inputs and the extrapolated total
savings from showerheads based on the measure counts reported by Simple Steps. The Simple
Steps database provided the overall number of showerheads sold through the program in ldaho;
however, no program data was available to determine the proportion of showerheads installed
in homes with natural gas water heating. ln order to determine the proportion of homes with
natural gas water heating, the evaluation team leveraged data collected through the 201't Single
Family Regional Building Stock Assessment2l. We used data specific to Avista's service territory
to assign the proportion of Simple Steps showerheads that contributed to natural gas savings.
5.3.4 Findings and Recommendations
Based on the review of sampled project documentation and phone survey data, the evaluation
team did not identify any errors or corrections needed to the program tracking database.
The evaluation team's analysis for the tankless water heater measures resulted in a realization
rate of 132%. The primary driver for the high realization rate is because in the gross savings
calculation, the evaluation team used the actual baseline EF's found in lhe 2014-2015
evaluation's participant impact surveys, resulting in a lower efficiency baseline than what Avista
is currently assuming in their energy savings calculations.
The analysis conducted for the low flow showerheads, as described above, resulted in a
blended realization rate across the 2.0, 1.75, and 1.50 GPM Simple Steps showerheads of
157%.
The total 2017 program realization rate and savings are presented in Table 5-8. The relative
precision of the program level natural gas realization rate is t13% at the 90% confidence level
Table 5-8: Water Heat Program Gross Verified Savings
Gas Tankless Water Heater 23,205
Simple Steps Showerheads 2,727
TOTAL
21 http://neea.org/docs/reports/residential-building-stock-assessment-single-family-characteristics-and-energy-use.pdf?sfursn=8
O Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 68
17,634 132o/o
1,738 157%
19,372 134o/o 25,932
2017 Reported
Savings
(Therms)
2017 Gross
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Measure Realization
Rate
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.4 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
5.4.1 Overview
The ENERGY STAR@ Homes program provides new home buyers with an $800 rebate for an
ENERGY STAR@ ECO-rated new manufactured home or $1,000 for an ENERGY STAR@ stick-
built home. Reported energy saving assumptions did not change for the ENERGY STAR Homes
program between the 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 program years. As the program parameters
did not change, the evaluation team conducted a document review and database review for
2016-2017 participants and used the realization rate from lhe 2014-2015 evaluation cycle to
calculate verified savings.
5.4.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation and energy impacts from the 2017 ENERGY STAR@ Homes program in ldaho are
summarized in Table 5-9 below.
Table 5-9:2017 ENERGY STAR@ Homes Reported Participation and Savings
G Energy Star Home - Natural Gas Only
5.4.3 Methodology
The evaluation team conducted a document audit of 1622 Natural Gas ENERGY STAR Homes
application materials along with a participation database review to ensure accurate program
savings values were recorded. The document audit and database review did not find any errors
in reporting of savings values for ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 ENERGY STAR Homes
participants. As the ENERGY STAR Homes program qualification and savings parameters did
not change between the2014-2015 and 2016-2017 biennium, the evaluation team utilized the
realization rate for ENERGY STAR Homes from the 2014-2015 evaluation cycle to calculate
verified savings for the 2016-2017 biennium. For the analysis method used in the prior
evaluation, the evaluation team collected Home Energy Rating System (HERS) lndex scores for
participating ENERGY STAR Homes. A baseline HERS lndex score of 80 was assumed as
standard for non-program new meter hookups. The evaluation team estimated weather
normalized annual consumption for ENERGY STAR Homes using the same basic model
specification shown in Equation 3-4. Because these newly built homes do not have a pre-retrofit
period, only "post-retrofit" consumption was estimated by the model23.
22 lncluded projects in both WA and lD
23 To determine verified energy savings, a recommendation from lhe 2014-2015 evaluation was that Avista track more detailed
characteristics of the ENERGY STAR6 program homes and non-program homes to allow for a reliable non-participant comparison
group billing analysis approach, which is preferred compared to the HERS index score approach utilized in that evaluation. Avista's
response to the recommendation was that the regional program effort leverages regional savings estimates and Avista does not
have access to additional data points.
O N9/olnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 201 6-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 69
406
2017 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported Savings
(Therms)Measure
2
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Equation 5-3 shows the calculation of estimated consumption absent the program
Equation 5-3: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program
Thermsxp = Thermsp ,. m
Table 5-'10 provides additional information about the terms in Equation 5-3.
Table 5-10: Calculation of Consumption Absent Program Definition of Terms
ThermsNp Estimated gas consumption in home absent the program
Thermsp Weather normalized annual gas consumption of the home
HERSease 2012 IECC HERS lndex Score for climate zone 5 = 80
HERSnore HERS lndex Score for the home
Table 5-1 1 shows the 2014-2015 calculation for gas savings and realization rate for ENERGY
STAR@ Natural Gas Homes.
Table 5-11: ENERGY STAR Home: Results for Natural Gas Homes 2014-2015 Evaluation
15 212o/o
5.4.4 Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-12 outlines the program reported and gross verified savings value for the gas-specific
homes in the 2017 ENERGY STAR@ homes program in ldaho. The relative precision of the
program level naturalgas realization rate ist44o/o at the 90% confidence level.
Table 5-12: ENERGY STAR@ Homes Program Gross Verified Savings
G Energy Star Home - Natural Gas
Only 863
Similar to recommendations in the 2014-2015 evaluation, a billing analysis would be the
preferred method to assess savings as a result of ENERGY STAR Homes measures. ln order to
Variable Definition
203 631 1,062 431 1.6
Ex Ante
Therms
Annual
Therms Base Therms Delta Therms I Weight Realization
Raten Homes
406 212%
2017
Reported
Savings
(Therms)
2017 Gross
Verified
Savings
(Therms)
Program
O Nf|/flnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 70
Realization
Rate
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
conduct a reliable billing analysis, a non-program comparison group is needed to allowfor a
reliable non-participant comparison group billing analysis approach. This data could be made
available via the Avista billing database should Avista track the following for new service point
ID's: identifying new construction accounts with a flag, and collecting basic home information
such as square footage and number of stories.
At a minimum, Avista may find more accurate savings projections by incorporating energy
savings values from the prior evaluation cycle into their TRM.
5.5 Fuel Efficiency
5.5.1 Overview
The fuel efficiency program offers a rebate for the conversion of electric resistance heat to
natural gas, as well as the conversion of electric hot water heaters to natural gas models. The
evaluation team conducted a document review, database review, telephone surveys, and a
billing analysis on a sample of the population in order to estimate the gross verified savings for
the program.
5.5.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation in the 2017 Fuel Efficiency program totaled 318. Table 5-13 and Figure 5-7
summarize Avista's 2017 Fuel Efficiency program participation and energy impacts in ldaho.
Table 5-13:2017 Fuel Efficiency Reported Participation and Savings
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace -3't,670
E Electric to Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat -68,264
E Electric to Natural Gas Wall Heater -4,867
E Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater -14,104
Total -1 18,905
95
126
13
84
318
20{7 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported
Savings (Therms)Measure
O NOQnT tmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 71
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-7:2017 Fue! Efficiency Program Reported Gas Penalty Shares
72%
r E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace
r E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water Heat
r E Electric To Natural Gas Wall Heater
I E Electric To Natural Gas Water Heater
57o/o
5.5.3 Methodology
The Fuel Efficiency program is a dynamic offering because participants modify the fuel source
used for space heating and/or water heating within their residences. These measures produce a
large reduction in electric consumption, which is offset to some extent by increased
consumption of natural gas. The evaluation team examined both the electric savings and
associated gas penalty using a regression analysis of billing data provided by Avista as
described in Section 3.4.4.3. The regression output is presented in the Appendix.
The evaluation team compiled a dataset consisting of 2016-2017 Fuel Efficiency program
participants being sure to include only those customers who were not enrolled in any other of
Avista's rebate programs during the evaluation period. ln addition, the evaluation team
requested monthly consumption records for each account that received a Fuel Efficiency rebate
(both Washington and ldaho) from Avista in 2016 and 2017 . Billing records were requested for
January 2015 through March 2018 to maximize the quantity of pre- and post-retrofit data
available. ln order to maximize the number of homes analyzed the evaluation team relaxed the
required number of months for inclusion in the analysis. Homes with at least nine months of pre-
retrofit billing history and six months of post-retrofit billing history were included in the analysis.
Of the 216 homes that received rebates through the Fuel Efficiency program only and had
adequate pre-retrofit and post-retrofit billing data, 82 homes (approximately 3B%) did not have
natural gas service with Avista prior to participation24. This means gas measures were installed
in these homes shortly after gas service was added to the residence. lt also presumes that the
pre-retrofit gas usage in these homes is intuitively zero therms per year.
24 The evaluation team used homes with two or fewer months of gas billing history and more than two months of electric billing
history as a proxy for the absence of prior gas service.
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 72
27%
4%
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
It is noteworthy that a large share of customers who received rebates through the Fuel
Efficiency program also received rebates for high efficiency natural gas equipment through other
Avista programs (e.9. Gas HVAC program). Because the analysis aimed at isolating the impacts
solely attributable to the Fuel Efficiency program, customers enrolled in multiple programs were
excluded, which reduced the customer sample size available for analysis.
5.5.4 Findings and Recommendations
Gas impacts (in this case, negative savings or increased consumption) were estimated
separately for homes with and without prior natural gas service and a weighted average
realization rate for the two groups was calculated. This weighted realization rate was then
applied to all reported therm penalties from fuel conversions to estimate verified impacts. Table
5-14 shows the results of the calculation for electric to gas furnace conversions.
Table 5-14: Electric to Gas Conversion Calculation
Homes with prior
gas service 65.2%
Homes with new
gas service 127.8%
Weighted Gas Realization Rate for Electric to Gas Furnace Conversion 69.8%
The regression model estimated that homes with pre-existing natural gas service consumed an
additional 320 therms annually. Homes without prior gas service went from zero therms per year
to 629 therms per year. The average estimated reported impact for each of these groups was
463 therms. The resulting weighted realization rate for the electric to gas conversion was
69.8%. The relative precision of the program level gas realization rate was !14.0o/o at the 90%
confidence level.
Table 5-15: Fue! Efficiency Program Reported and Gross Verified Savings
Fuel Efficiency -82,948
5.6 Shell Program
5.6.1 Overview
Avista's internally managed shell program incentivizes measures that improve the integrity of
the home's envelope such as insulation (attic, floor and wall), and window replacements. The
evaluation team conducted a database review, document audits, customer telephone surveys,
01 N?J/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 73
134 -463 667 987 -320
82 629 -629-463 0
Ex Ante
Therms
Annual
Therms Pre
Annual
Therms
Post
Annual Gas
lmpact
Realization
RateGroup# Homes
-1 18,905 70o/o
2017 Reported i
Savings (Therms) :
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(Therms)
Program Realization Rate
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
and a billing analysis to estimate the adjusted reported and gross verified savings for the
program.
5.6.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation and energy impacts for the 2017 Shell program are summarized in Table 5-16 and
Figure 5-8.
Tabfe 5-16:2017 Shell Program Reported Participation and Savings
G Attic lnsulation 655
G Floor lnsulation 81
G Wall lnsulation 102
G Window Replacement with Natural Gas Heat 14,295
TOTAL 15,132
Figure 5-8:2017 Shell Program Reported Energy Saving Shares
4% to/o
tYo
r G Attic lnsulation
r G Floor lnsulation
r G Wall lnsulation
I G Window Replc w/ Natural Gas
Heat
94%
5.6.3 Methodology
The evaluation team conducted 75 document audits as part of our evaluation activities. These
document audits were conducted to confirm participation in the program, confirm efficiency
levels of installed equipment as applicable, check that Avista reported data matched project files
and that Avista is reporting the savings value for each applicable measure as noted in their
Technical Reference Manual (TRM). The evaluation team also conducted a review of Avista's
comptete 2016 and 2017 program databases to check for errors in measure-level reporting.
7
1
1
205
2',14
2017 Reported
Participation Count
2017 Reported Savings
(Therms)Measure
O NeXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 74
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Nine shell participant document records reported different values in installed square footage
units than the Avista participation database. These data entry errors did not affect reported
savings values.
5.6.3.1 Program billing analysis
Following the same method used to estimate impacts for the HVAC program, the evaluation
team requested monthly consumption records for each account that received a Shell rebate
(both Washington and ldaho) from Avista in 2016 and 2017. Billing records were requested for
January 2015 through February 2018 to maximize the quantity of pre- and post-retrofit data
available. The evaluation team filtered customers who participated in other Avista programs in
order to capture effects of only the Shell program. The evaluation team estimated impacts by
selecting a matched comparison group of non-participants to conduct a difference in differences
regression model as discussed in Section 3.4.4.1of this report and the detailed regression
outputs are presented in the Appendix.
5.6.4 Findings and Recommendations
Figure 5-9 below illustrates program impacts observed in the 2017 program year. The figure
denotes modest savings during the winter months and minimal savings across the summer
season.
Figure 5-9: Shell Post-Treatment lmpacts
The program saw 214 measures rebated to 209 customers in 2017 which is an average
reported savings of 72 therms per participant. However, the results of the billing analysis found
an average savings per participant of 57 therms. Therefore, the gas realization rate for the Shell
program was estimated at 78% (see Table 5-17). The relative precision of the program levelgas
realization rate was !11o/o at the 90% confidence level.
-Qeptpel -Treatment200
180
160
t40
720
100
80
60
40
20
0
s3J
.>
co
=oa0(!
o
""$.$""i*i".iri"$$$$$/
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'15-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 75
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-17: Shell Program Gross Verified Savings
11,856
5.7 Low lncome
5.7.1 Overview
Avista's Low lncome program offers a variety of conservation and fuel efficiency measures to
low income households. Avista leverages Community Action Program (CAP) agencies to deliver
energy efficiency programs to the Company's low income customer group. CAP agencies have
resources to income qualify, prioritize and treat homes based upon a number of characteristics.
ln addition to the Company's annual funding, the Agencies have other monetary resources that
they can usually leverage when treating a home with weatherization and other energy efficiency
measures. The Agencies either have in-house or contractor crews to install many of the
efficiency measures of the program. Avista provides CAP agencies with an "Approved Measure
List" of energy efficiency measures. Any measure installed on this list by the Agency in an
income qualified home will receive 100% reimbursement for the cost for the work.
5.7.2 Program Achievements and Participation Summary
Participation in the 2017 Low lncome program totaled 276 conservation and fuel conversion
projects. Table 5-18 summarizes the reported participation counts and energy savings for the
measures that make-up the Low lncome program. The high efficiency gas furnace measure
accounts for 35o/o of the program savings, with insulation measures contributing to the second
largest quantity of savings al28o/o (Figure 5-10).
209 72 78%57
2017 Reported
Average
Savings per
Participant
(therms)
2017 Gross
Verified
Average
Savings per
Participant
(therms)
2017 Gross
Verified
Savings
(therms)
Realization Rate
2017 Reported
Savings
(therms)
2017 Reported
Participation
Count
L, Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natura! Gas 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 76
15,132
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-18:2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Participation and Savings
Conservation 891
Conservation 1,477
Conservation 587
Conservation 1,835
111
229
Conservation 117
Conservation 54
Low lncome Total - Conservation Only 5,30'l
Fuel Conversion -5,604
Fuel Conversion -5,849
Low lncome Total - Fue! Gonversion -11,453
Figure 5-1O:2017 Low-lncome Program Reported Energy Saving Shares: Conservation
Measures
4% 2o/o 7o/o
28%
r G Air lnfiltration
r G insulation
r G Duct Sealing
r G HE Furnace
r G Energy Star Doors
r G Energy Star
Windows
77%
5.7.3 Methodology
The evaluation team organized the analysis based on conservation and fuel conversion
measures and employed a regression analysis to estimate impacts.
G Air lnflltration 45
G lnsulation 56
19G Duct Sealing
G HE Furnace 32
G Energy Star Doors 16
G Energy Star Windows 21
G HE WH 5OG 8
E ENERGY STAR Doors 16
213
E to G Furnace Conversion 25
38E to G H2O Conversion
63
2017 Reported
Participation
Count
2017 Reported
Savings (Therms)Measure Category Measure
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 77
Conservation
Conservation
2o/o
!7o/o
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
The Low lncome program operates as a dualfuel program in ldaho with CAP Agencies
targeting both electric and natural gas savings opportunities. Participating homes generally
received multiple improvements so the electric and gas savings values from all measures
installed within a given home were aggregated to arrive at the total reported savings for each
home. For the gas savings analysis, the evaluation team first filtered the program population to
include only those homes with claimed gas savings in the program tracking data. We then relied
on a regression analysis of Avista billing data to estimate per-home impacts for homes claiming
gas savings.
Next, homes were assigned to one of two groups for analysis
1) Conservation Participants - these customers participated only in conservation-related
measures in the program.
2) Conversion Participants - these customers were unique participants only partaking in
conversion measures through the program.
Figure 5-1 1 shows the distribution of per-home reported electric savings for the two groups.
Reported electric impacts for the fuel switching homes were generally larger.
Lt NO/(]1nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 78
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Figure 5-l'l: Distribution of Reported Therm Values by Home Type
Conversion Homes
40
30 (Jc(l))20 u0)
Li-
10
0-400 -300 -200 -100
Reported Therm per Account
0
Conservation Homes
60
40p
(u)oo20li
0 50 100 150
Reported Therm per Account
200 25 00
As described in Section 3.4.4, each home was matched to the nearest weather station and
historicalweather records were merged with historical consumption. Homes were required to
have at least 12 months of pre-retrofit and 12 months of post-retrofit billing data for inclusion in
the analysis. The evaluation team used a fixed effects panel regression modelto establish the
average relationship between electric consumption and weather before and after service.
Separate models were estimated for fuel conversion customers and electric conservation
customers and both ldaho and Washington participants were used in the analysis to boost the
precision of the results. Regression coefficients were then applied to normal weather conditions
(TMY3) for the region to estimate weather-normalized annual electric savings. The regression
coefficients and relevant goodness of fit statistics are presented in the Appendix.
O NeJOnT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 201 6-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 79
SECTION 5 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
5.7.4 Findings and Recommendations
Table 5-19 summarizes the key inputs and outputs of the regression analysis. As the conversion
participants switched from electric to gas heating, this cohort realized a substantial increase in
gas consumption of approximately 280o/o. However, with a realization rate of 75%o, the increased
gas usage was less than forecasted by Avista. For conservation participants, the average
impact was just over 6% reduction in gas consumption which is significantly less than found in
the prior 2014-2015 biennium evaluation. Further investigation into consumption patterns
revealed an anomaly with the 2015-2017 participants relative to the previous biennium. As
Figure 5-12 illustrates, the consumption profile for 2014-2015 participants saw a decrease in
consumption by January 2015 due to program treatment. However, 2016-2017 participants saw
an increase in consumption by January 2017 and only a decrease to similar 2016 consumption
values by the biennium close in December 2017. Therefore, the overall impact on gas
consumption was low and ultimately the conservation measures achieved a 28% realization
rate.
Figure 5-'12:2014-2015 vs 2016-2017 Low lncome Biennium Consumption
-
)Ql$analysis(bottom axis)
-
lQlf analysis(topaxis)
Jan 2015 Jan 2016 Jan 2017 Jan 2018
150
50
Jan 2013 Jan2O14 Jan 201 5 Jan 2016
1
a
E
0)
l-F
.>
Eo
=oo)ol-0)
00
0
O NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 80
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
42
-535
143
542
-400
74.7%
14.3%
-280.1%
Fuel Conversion Participants Conservation ParticlpantsStratum
Table 5-19: Low lncome Billing Analysis Findings
Number of Homes Analyzed
Average Reported therm per Home
Weather Normalized Annual therm Pre-
Retrofit
Weather Normalized Annual therm
Post-Retrofit
Average therm Savings per Home
Realization Rate
Relative Precision
(90% confidence level)
Average Percent Reduction in Annual
Electric Consumption
636
595
40
98
146
27.6%
65.7o/o
6.3%
The 2017 conservation and fuel conversion reported and gross verified savings are presented in
Table 5-20. The relative precision of the program level gas realization rate was t57o/o at the
90% confidence level for the conservation measure category.
Table 5-20: Low-lncome Program Gross Verified Savings
Conservation 1,464
Fuel Conversion -8,552
5.8 Residential Sector Results Summary
Table 5-21 lists the gross verified savings for each of Avista's residential programs in ldaho in
2017. The ldaho gas residential sector achieved a 1260/o realization rate for conservation
measures and a 7Oo/o realization rate for conversion measures. The relative precision of the
portfolio-level gas realization rate was t6/% at the 90% confidence level.
Table 5-21 lists the gross verified savings for each of Avista's residential programs in ldaho in
2017 . The ldaho gas residential sector achieved a 126% realization rate for conservation
measures and a 70o/o realization rate for conversion measures. The relative precision of the
portfolio-level gas realization rate was t6.4% at the 90% confidence level.
213 5,301 28%
63 -11,453 75%
2017 Reported
Participation
Count
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Gross
Verified Savings
(therms)
Measure Category Realization Rate
O N9/olnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 81
SECTION 5 RESI DENTIAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Table 5-21: Residential Program Gross lmpact Evaluation Results
HVAC 194,247
ENERGY STAR Homes 863
Shell 't1,856
Water Heat Program 25,932
Low lncome Conservation 1,464
Conservation Total 234,362
Fuel Efficiency (Fuel
Conversion)-82,948
Low lncome Fuel Conversion -8,552
Fuel Gonversion Total -91,500
146,043 133%
406 212%
15,132 78%
19,372 134o/o
s,301 28o/o
186,254 1260/o
-1 18,905 70%
-11,453 75%
-130,358 70%
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Gross
Verified SavingsProgramRealization Rate
O NOOW lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 82
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Summary
The following outlines the evaluation team's conclusions and recommendations for Avista to
consider for future program processes and reporting. Additional details regarding the
conclusions and recommendations outlined here can be found in the program-specific sections
of this report.
6,2 Impact Findings
The evaluation team performed the impact evaluation for Avista's 2016 and 2017 ldaho gas
programs through a combination of document audits, customer surveys, engineering analysis
and onsite measurement and verification (M&V) on a sample of participating projects. The
impact evaluation activities resulted in an 120% realization rate across Avista's 2017 portfolio of
programs (Table 6-1) and 121% realization rate across the 2016 portfolio of programs (Table
6-2).
Table 6-3 through Table 6-6 summarize Avista's 2016 and 2017 impact evaluation results by
year, sector and program.
Table 6-1:2017 ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential 232,898
Nonresidential 71 ,182
Low lncome 1,464
Portfolio Tota 254,169 120o/o 305,545
25 Fuel conversion measures (measures wherein customers convert from electric to natural gas space and water heating) result in a
negative impact and are not included in the total. lmpacts of fuel conversion measures can be found in the program specific
sections (Sections 4 and 5).
180,953 129o/o
67,915 105o/o
5,301 28Yo
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
Realization Rate
lYol
2017 Gross Verified
Savings (thenns)Sector
O Ng@nT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs 83
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN DATIONS
Table 6-2: 2016ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio Evaluation Results
Residential 192,009
Nonresidential 37,072
Low lncome 860
Portfolio Tota 229,941
Table 6-3:2017 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 3,509
Food Service Equipment 14,301
HVAC 11,752
Commercial lnsulation 11 ,735
Small Business 28,975
Site Specifi c Conservation 911
Nonresidential Total2T 71,182
Table 6-4: 2016 ldaho Natural Gas Nonresidential Program Evaluation Results
Energy Smart Grocer 84
Food Service Equipment 21,557
HVAC 4,112
Commercial lnsulation
Small Business 9,446
Site Specifi c Conservation 1,873
Nonresidential Total2s 37,072
26 Fuel conversion measures (measures wherein customers convert from electric to natural gas space and water heating) result in a
negative impact and are not included in the total. lmpacts of fuel conversion measures can be found in the program specific
sections (Sections 4 and 5).
27 Nonresidential total does not include impacts of Site Specific fuel conversion measures. See Section 4.6 for fuel conversion
impacts.
28 Nonresidential total does not include impacts of Site Specific fuel conversion measures. See Section 4.6 for fuel conversion
impacts.
151 ,598 127%
34,582 107%
3,114 28%
189,294 121o/o
2016 Reported
Savings (therms)
Realization Rate$t 2016 Gross Verified
Savings (therms)Sector
8,370 42o/o
13,588 105o/o
9,467 124%
8,282 142%
27,404 106%
804 113%
67,915 105%
2017 Reported
Savings (therms)
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
200 42%
20,483 105%
3,312 124%
0 142%
8,934 106%
1,653 113o/o
34,582 107Yo
2016 Reported i
Savings (therms) ;
2016 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 84
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 6-5:2017 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC 194,247
ENERGY STAR Homes 863
Shell 11,856
Water Heat Program 25,932
Low lncome Conservation 1,464
Residential Total2s 234,362
Table 6-6: 2016 ldaho Natural Gas Residential Program Evaluation Results
HVAC 140,08'l
ENERGY STAR Homes 431
Shell 14,373
Water Heat Program 37,123
Low lncome Conservation 860
Residential Total3o 192,869
6.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
The following outlines the key conclusions and recommendations as a result of the evaluation
activities. Specific details regarding the conclusions and recommendations outlined here, along
with additional conclusions and recommendations can be found in the program-specific sections
of this report.
6.3.1 Nonresidential Programs
The overall realization rate for lhe 2017 nonresidential portfolio is 105%. The realization rates
ranged from 142%o forthe Commercial lnsulation program down to 42o/ofor the Energy Smart
Grocer program. The evaluation team found that the processes Avista is utilizing for estimating
and reporting energy savings for the nonresidential programs are predominantly sound and
reasonable. The following subsections outline specific conclusions and recommendations for
several of the nonresidential programs.
29 Residential total does not include impacts of residential and low income fuel conversion measures. See Sections 5.5 and 5.7 for
fuel conversion impacts.
30 Residential total does not include impacts of residential and low income fuel conversion measures. See Sections 5.5 and 5.7 for
fuel conversion impacts.
't46,043 133o/o
406 212Yo
15,132 78o/o
19,372 134o/o
5,301 28Yo
186,254 1260/o
20'17 Repoded
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
'105,319 133o/o
203 212Yo
18,344 7lYo
27,732 134o/o
3,114 28o/o
154,712 'l25Yo
2016 Reported
Savings (therms)
2016 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)Program Realization Rate
0 NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 85
2017 Verified Gross
Savings (therms)
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN DATIONS
6.3.1.1 Natural Gas Prescriptive Programs
Conclusion: Avista reported participation in four prescriptive natural gas programs in 2017.
Food Service Equipment, Commercial lnsulation, Natural Gas HVAC, and Energy Smart
Grocer. Strong realizations rates for most of these programs indicate that the Avista's deemed
savings estimates for these measures are accurate and appropriate.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate
these programs with the current level of rigor.
Conclusion: The Energy Smart Grocer program constituted about 12% of the nonresidential
natural gas portfolio energy shares (reported therm savings). The evaluation team found a
realization rate of 42%'for this program, predominately due to a zero realization rate that was
found for a few large projects in the sample, based on utility bill analysis.
Recommendation: The Energy Smart Grocer program is implemented by a third party.
It is recommended that for large projects, Avista work more closely with the implementer
to ensure accurate reporting.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista consider using
performance-based incentives for any measures that are estimated to achieve
savings of 10% or more of annual natural gas consumption. For projects where eQuest
model were employed by the implementer to estimate savings, Avista should verify that
the baseline eQuest modelwas calibrated on a monthly basis for both gas and electric
consumption.
6.3.1.2 Small Business Program
Conclusion: The Small Business program in lD constituted approximately 41% of the total
savings for the nonresidential portfolio in 2017 . The evaluation team found a 1060/o realization
for the program.
Conclusion: The Small Business program implementer has improved their tracking of
decommissioned measures in the 2016-2017 biennium, in comparison to the2014-2015
biennium, as shown by the evaluation team's calculated persistence rate of 98% for the
measures included in the sample in the 2016-2017 biennium.
6.3.1.3 Site Specific Program
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constituted a small portion of the nonresidential portfolio
in ldaho (-1% in 2017). Over the last 4 years, Avista has increased their level of quality
assurance and review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation team's
analysis resulted in a 133o/o realization rate for the Site Specific program (conservation
measures only).
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate
the Sit Specific program with the current level of rigor.
O NOQnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-20'17 Energy Efficiency Programs 86
SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN DATIONS
6.3.2 Residential Programs
The overall realization rate for the residential portfolio's conservation programs in the 2017
program year was 126% while the conversion programs achieved a 70% realization rate. The
conversion programs all performed wellwith realization rates above 100% with the exception of
the Shell and Low lncome programs. The conversion programs low realization rates indicates
the forecasted increase gas consumption was not realized. The following subsections outline
specific conclusions and recommendations for several of the residential programs.
6.3.2.1 HVAC Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a realization of 133% at the program level. This is
similar to the findings of the 2014-2015 evaluation which found a 125% realization rate for
ldaho. The findings are based on the analysis of 802 homes resulting in a relative precision of
6.8%.
Recommendation: Given that the realization rate is substantially higher than 100% and
is associated with a low error bound, Avista should consider revising its reported savings
values for measures within the program.
6.3.2.2 Water Heat
Conclusion: For showerheads distributed through the Simple Steps program, Avista allocates
50o/o of its reported savings to electric savings and 50% to natural gas savings to account for
homes that have different water heating fuel types.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista update this allocation
assumption to be based on representative water heater fuel type saturation. These data
are available through the Regional Building Stock Assessment study; however, we
recommend Avista base the allocation on data specific to its territory.
6.3.2.3 FuelEfficiency
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that the homes analyzed that converted from electric
heat to a natural gas furnace showed an average weather normalized gas consumption
increase of 328 therms per year resulting in a 70%o realization rate. This impact and realization
rate is very similar to findings from the prior evaluation (384 therms increased consumption with
a 7 0% realization rate).
Recommendation The evaluation team recommends Avista review its forecasted gas
penalty for the Fuel Efficiency program. Based on two cycles of evaluation, the program
appears to be over-estimating the actual impact.
6.3.2.4 Shell Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a realization rate of 78% for shell program. These
findings reflect reported savings are fairly well aligned for the program. However, there may be
room for further refinement of savings assumptions for the reported values.
O NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 87
SECTION 6
Recommendation: To refine the reported savings assumptions, we recommend Avista
examine planning assumptions about per-home consumption, end-use load shares, and
percent reductions in heating loads from shell improvements.
6.3.2.5 Low lncome Program
Conclusion: The verified savings for the gas conservation homes was very low relative to
Avista's reported savings with a realization rate of 28%. This is a departure from the previous
evaluation which found a realization rate of 101o/o. Moreover, the evaluation observed
unexpected increases in consumption on average after the first year of the biennium. The
conversion measures achieved a75% realization rate indicating the program assumed too high
of a gas penalty.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista maintain its current
assumptions for conservation measures due to the diverging realization rates between
the prior and current evaluations that appear to be driven by varying participant
consumption profiles.
g Ng@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20'16-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 88
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix A Net to Gross Methodology and Findings
The evaluation team calculated net-to-gross (NTG) ratios for each program, using data collected
from participant surveys. NTG takes into consideration the levels of both free ridership (FR) and
spillover (SO). Free ridership refers to the portion of energy savings that participants would have
achieved in the absence of the program through their own initiatives and expenditures (EPA,
200n.1Spillover refers to the program-induced adoption of measures by non-participants and
participants who did not receive financial incentives or technical assistance for installations of
measures supported by the program (EPA, 2007). The evaluation team used the following
formula to calculate a NTG ratio for each program:
NTG :1. - FR + SO
A.1 Free Ridership
Subtracting free ridership from gross savings produces an estimate of how much the program
influenced participants to make the energy saving improvements that the program incents. Free
ridership ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 being no free ridership (the program induced all of the
reported gross savings), 1 being total free ridership (the program induced none of the savings)
and values in between represent varying degrees of partial free ridership. The evaluation team
used participant survey data to inform free ridership estimates.
Free ridership consists of two components - change (FRC) and influence (FRl) - which both
range from 0 to .5.
FR=FRC+FRI
Free Ridership Change (FRC)
Free ridership change is the participant's self-report of what they likely would have done if the
program had not provided an incentive for their energy upgrade. To determine this, the
evaluation team asked participant survey respondents FRC questions specific to the measures
they installed. The question below exemplifies how the evaluation team collected FRC data.
I'd like to ask a few questions about what you most likely would have done had you not received
assisfance from Avista for the [Measure Type]
Q1. Which of the following three alternatives is most likely: Would you have:
[SINGLE RESPONSE]
1. Put off buying a new [Measure Typel for at least one year fincludes repairing old or
buying a used one.l
2. Bought a new [Measure Typel that was less expensive or less energy efficient.
3. Bought the exact same [Measure Typel anyway, and paid the full cost yourself.
1 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007). Model Energy Efficienry Program lmpact Evaluation Guide. Retrieved June 8,
20'15 from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/evaluation_guide.pdf.
A N€l((x/nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20f 6-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs A-1
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
lDo not read:l-96. 96. Other, please specify: [OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]-97. 98. Don't know-98. 99. Refused
The evaluation team then assigned the following FRC values to each respondent, based on
their response to the question above, as shown in the Table A-1.
Table A-1: Free Ridership Change Values
Put off buying a new [Measure Type] for at least one year flncludes
repairing old or buying a used one.l
Bought a new [Measure Type] that was less expensive or less
energy efficient.
Bought the exact same [Measure Type] anyway, and paid the full
cost yourself.
0.00
0.50
0.25
Other
FRC values assigned on a case by case
basis, depending on which pre-coded
response item they most resemble
Don't know / Refused 0.25
Free Ridership lnfluence (FRl)
Free ridership influence represents how much influence the program had on a participant's
decision to perform the incented energy upgrade. To determine this, the evaluation team asked
participant survey respondents the following question:
Q2 Now I would like to ask about the influence that the program played in your decision to
purchase the energy efficient [Measure Type]. l'm going to read a list of things that
may have influenced your decision to buy the [Measure Typel. For each one, please
indicate how much of an influence it played in your decision, where '1' means it was "not
at all influential" and "5" means it was "extremely influential." Let me know if an item
doesn't apply to you. finteruiewer: do not read 97-991
TRIX TION:
Ql Response
1 2 3 4 5 97
NA
98
DK
99
RF
[LOGIC]ltem
The rebate you received
lnformation on Avista's
website
Advertising and other
information from Avista
A salesperson or
contractor
Anything else, please
O NP,)(onf tmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-2
FRC Value
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
The evaluation team then selected the highest rated program-attributable item for each
respondent and assigned the following FRI scores, depending on their high score value (Table
A-2).
Table A-2: Free Ridership lnfluence Values
0.500
0.375
0.250
0.125
5 0.000
Don't know / Refused Sector-level measure average
Program-Level Free Ridership
The evaluation team summed FRC and FRI scores for each respondent, yielding participant
levelfree ridership (FR) scores. The evaluation team used the participant-level FR scores to
calculate a savings-weighted average FR score for each program, which serves as the
program-level FR score.
4.2 Spillover
Spillover estimates the energy savings from non-rebated energy improvements made outside of
the program that are influenced by the program, and can be used to adjust gross savings by the
additional energy savings garnered and the level of attribution the program is able to claim for
these non-rebated measures. A spillover value of 0 equates to no spillover and values greater
than 0 demonstrate the existence and magnitude of spillover.2 The evaluation team used
participant survey data to estimate spillover.
The evaluation team asked participant survey respondents to indicate what energy saving
measures they had implemented since participating in the program to identify potential spillover
The evaluation team then asked participants to use a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means "not at all
influential" and 5 means "extremely influential," to indicate how much influence the Avista
program had on their decision to purchase these additional energy saving measures. Table A-3
exhibits how much program influence, ranging from 0% to 100%, is associated with each scale
response to the spillover influence question.
2 Spillover values can be interpreted as percentages, where 1=1007o. Thus, a spillover value of .5 would mean that spillover savings
were 50olo of program gross savings.
A NPJ(onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-3
2
3
4
lnfluence Rating FRI Value
,|
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
Table A-3: Participant Spillover Program lnfluence Values
'1.0
1.0
The evaluation team used the influence value to calculate the participant measure spillover
(PMSO) for each spillover measure that each participant reported. Participant measure spillover
is calculated as follows, with the deemed measure savings values based on the evaluation
teams estimate of the savings for the implemented measure:
PMSO = Deemed Measure Savtngs * Inf luence Value
The evaluation team then summed all PMSO values associated with each program and divided
them by the sample's gross program savings to calculate the spillover estimates for each
program:
0.0
0.0
0.5
2
3
4
5
Prooramro = .lP'og'o*PMfr' -v'-"--- \Sample's 6ross Programsavtngs
A.3 Net to Gross Findings
Residential
The table below outlines the free ridership, spillover, and NTG values estimated for each
residential program (WA and lD combined) using data collected in the 2016-17 participant
surveys. NTG data for residential programs not evaluated in 2016-17 use the NTG values
calculated in the 2014-15 report.
lnfluence ValueReported Avista Program
lnfluence
O N€xi0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-4
APPENDIX A NET TO GROSS METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
Table A-3: Avista Territory Residential Program Net-To-Gross Results
Fuel Efficiency (Electric)
Shell (Electric) 3
Shell(Gas)a
HVAC (Gas)
HVAC (Electric)
Water Heat (Electric)
Energy Star Homes (Electric)2014-15 Evaluation
Energy Star Homes (Gas)
Water Heat (Gas)
Lighting(Electric)
Opower (Electric)
Low lncome (Electric)
Low lncome conservation (Gas)
Fuel Efficiency (Gas)
Nonresidential
Due to a programming error in the skip patterns governing the free ridership questions, the
nonresidential participant survey did not collect valid free ridership data. The error did not affect
the spillover questions, which generated valid data. To calculate net savings for the 2016-2017
biennium, we applied lhe 2014-2015 measure-based free ridership values to the 2016-2017
measure-based savings estimates and added the estimated 2016-2017 spillover (Table A-4).
Table A-4: Avista Territory Nonresidential Program Net-To-Gross Results
Sma
65%
Other
Site 58%
Small Business
Site
Smart Grocer 100%
Food Service 49%
Small Business 100%
Other
3 There is a slight difference in reported freeridership values for shell-electric in the process report filed on June 1, 2018. The
process report accidentally showed the unweighted freeridership value of 55%. The savings weighted value shown here, 560/0, is the
conect freeridership value for shell-electric measures.
4 Th"t" is a slight difference in reported freeridership values for shell-gas in the process report filed on June 1 , 2018. The
freeridership value presented in the process report, 56%, was calculated using incorrect savings weights for lD shell-gas measures.
Using the correct lD shell-gas weights results in a freeridership value of 54%.
N/A
N/A
760/0
23%0%77%
560/o 4o/o 49%
54o/o 0%46%
39%Qo/o 61Yo
54o/o OYo 460/o
7 4o/o 0o/o 26%
67%0o/o 33o/o
530h lYo 47o/o
46%0o/o 54%
100o/o
100%
100o/o
100o/o
100o/o
Program SourceFR ispillover: NTG
25o/o 2%
37%20h
24%1%
42o/o 0%
Oo/o 1%
3Oo/o 0%
Oo/o 0%
51o/o o%
Oo/o o%
50Yo 0%
Program SpilloverFR NTG
O Nil(otnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-5
2016-17 Evaluation
A NO@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs A-l
Appendix B Sampling and Estimation
The gross verified energy savings estimates presented in this report from Avista's natural gas
energy efficiency programs were generally determined through the observation of key measure
parameters among a sample of program participants. A census evaluation would involve
surveying, measuring, or otherwise evaluating the entire population of projects within a
population. Although a census approach would eliminate the sampling uncertainty for an entire
program, the reality is that ttI&V takes many resources both on the part of the evaluation team
and the program participants who agree to be surveyed or have on-site inspections conducted
in their home or business. When a sample of projects is selected and analyzed, the sample
statistics can be extrapolated to provide a reasonable estimate of the population parameters.
Therefore, when used effectively, sampling can improve the overall quali$ of an evaluation
study. By limiting resource-intensive data collection and analysis to a random sample of all
projects, more attention can be devoted to each project surveyed.
The nuances and tradeoffs considered by the evaluation team when developing sampling
approaches varied across the portfolio and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.
However, several common objectives were shared across sectors and programs. The most
important sampling objective was representativeness - that is the projects selected in the
evaluation were representative of the population they were selected from and will produce
unbiased estimates of population parameters. A second key sampling objective was to consider
the value of information being collected and align sample allocations accordingly. This effort
generally involves considering the size (contribution to program savings) and uncertainty
associated with the area being studied and making a determination about the appropriate level
of evaluation resources to allocate.
The evaluation team used two broad classes of probability estimation techniques to make
inferences about program or stratum performance based on the observations and
measurements collected from the evaluation sample. Auxiliary information refers to the reported
savings estimates stored in the program tracking system.
1) Mean-Per-Unit (or estimation in the absence of auxiliary information): This technique
was used to analyze samples drawn from populations that are similar in size and scope.
This approach was used primarily for residential programs that include a large number of
rebates for similar equipment types where the evaluation objective is to determine an
average therm savings per rebated piece of equipment. With mean-per-unit estimation
the average therm savings observed within the sample is applied to all projects in the
population.
2) Ratio Estimation (or estimation using auxiliary information): This technique was used
for nonresidential programs and residential programs with varying savings across
projects. This technique assumes that the ratio of the sum of the verified savings
estimates to the sum of the reported savings estimates within the sample is
A NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 20't6-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-1
APPENDIX B SAMPLI NG AND ESTIMATION
representative of the program as a whole. This ratio is referred to as the realization rate,
or ratio estimator, and is calculated as follows:
Equation B- 1: Coefficient of Variation
RearizationRate = ffi
Where n is the number of projects in the evaluation sample. The realization rate is then applied
to the claimed savings of each project in the population to calculate gross verified savings.
Figure B- 1 shows the reduction in error that can be achieved through ratio estimation when the
sizes of projects within a program population vary considerably. The ratio estimator provides a
better estimate of individual project savings than a mean savings value by leveraging the
reported savings estimate.
Figure B- 1: Comparison of Mean-Per-Unit and Ratio Estimation
+
RR = O.97
Earor
0 {,q(m 2oq,G, nq6o /mqm 50q(m anGr
R.portcdSilinat
8.1 Stratification
ln a few cases, the evaluation team used sample stratification with both classes of estimation
techniques. Stratification is a departure from simple random sampling (SRS), where each
sampling unit (customer/projecUrebate/measure) has an identical likelihood of being selected in
the sample. Stratified random sampling refers to the designation of two or more sub-groups
(strata) from within a program population prior to the selection process. Whenever stratification
was employed the evaluation team took great care to ensure that each sampling unit within the
population belonged to one (and only one) stratum. ln each program sample design where
stratification was used, the probability of selection is different between strata and this difference
must be accounted for when calculating results. The inverse of the selection probability is
referred to as the case weight and is used in estimation of impacts when stratified random
samples are utilized. Consider the following simplified example in Table B- 1 based on a
fictional program with two measures; refrigerators and clothes washers.
7q(m
€0q,(m
soq(m
40q(m
3q,(m
20q(m
uq(m
o
i
++
.;
g
l,
!U
=0
g
fi!o
o
70q(m
6m,(m
$qm
s,(m
:nq,(m
2Oq(m
18(m
o
+
+
+a
*
t
I
1
LtNexonf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-2
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Table B- 1: Case Weights Example
Clothes Dryerc
Gas Furnaces
Because gas furnaces are sampled at a higher rate (1-in-200) than clothes dryers (1-in-500),
each sample point carries less weight in the program results than an individual clothes dryer
sample point. ln general, the evaluation team designed samples so that strata with high case
weights had low per-unit impacts or were well-understood measures. Low case weights were
reserved for large and complex measures.
The evaluation team felt that stratification was advantageous and utilized it in the sample design
for a variety of reasons across the portfolio:
1) lncreased precision if the within-stratum variability was expected to be small compared
to the variability of the population as a whole. Stratification in this case allows for
increased precision or smaller total sample sizes, which lowered evaluation costs.
2) To ensure that a minimum number of units within a particular stratum will be verified.
Although a program's contribution to portfolio savings may be small, the evaluation team
felt it was important to sample enough projects to independently estimate program
performance.
3) lt is easy to implement a value-of-information approach through which the largest
projects are sampled at a much higher rate than smaller projects by creating size-based
strata.
4) Sampling independently within each stratum allows for comparisons among groups.
Avista and the evaluation team find value in comparing results between strata; e.9.,
comparing the realization rates between measures within a program.
8.2 Presentation of Uncertainty
There is an inherent risk, or uncertainty, that accompanies sampling, because the projects
selected in the evaluation sample may not be representative of the program population as a
whole with respect to the parameters of interest. As the proportion of projects in the program
population that are sampled increases, the amount of sampling uncertainty in the findings
decreases. The amount of variability in the sample also affects the amount of uncertainty
introduced by sampling. A small sample drawn from a homogeneous population will provide a
more reliable estimate of the true population characteristics than a small sample drawn from a
heterogeneous population. Variability is expressed using the coefficient of variation (C) for
programs that use simple random sampling, and an error ratio for programs that use ratio
estimation. The C, of a population is equal to the standard deviation (o) divided by the mean (p)
as shown in Equation B- 2.
0 No@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-3
500
200
15,000 30
6,000 30
Population Size Case WeightMeasureSample Size
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Equation B- 2: Coefficient of Variation
Cu =!tl
When ratio estimation is utilized, standard deviations will vary for each project in the population.
The error ratio is an expression of this variability and is analogous to the C,for simple random
sampling.
Equation B- 3 provides the formula for estimating error ratio
Equation B- 4 shows the formula used to calculate the required sample size for each evaluation
sample, based on the desired level of confidence and precision. Notice that the C,term is in the
numerator, so required sample size will increase as the level of variability increases. For
programs that rely on ratio estimation, error ratio replaces the C, term in Equation B- 4. Results
of the 2014-2015 portfolio evaluation were the primary source of error ratio and C, assumptions
for the evaluation.
Equation B- 4: Required Sample Size
Equation B- 3: Error Ratio
stroiError Ratio = ffi
.z * Cr_,
l-l.DTLg
Where
llo =
a-z_-
C,
D
The required sample size before adjusting for the size of the population
A constant based on the desired level of confidence (equal to 1.645 for 90%
confidence two-tailed test)
Coefficient of variation (error ratio for ratio estimation)
Desired relative precision
The sample size formula shown in Equation B- 4 assumes that the population of the program is
infinite and that the sample being drawn is reasonably large. ln practice, this assumption is not
always met. For sampling purposes, any population greater than approximately 7,000 may be
considered infinite for the purposes of sampling. For smaller, or finite, populations, the use of a
finite population correction factor (FPC) is warranted. This adjustment accounts for the extra
precision that is gained when the sampled projects make up more than about 5% of the
program savings. Multiplying the results of Equation B- 4 by the FPC formula shown in Equation
B- 5 will produce the required sample size for a finite population.
O N€/(flnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B,4
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
Where:
Equation B- 5: Finite Population Correction Factor
fpc =
'N-no
N-1
Size of the population
The required sample size before adjusting for the size of the population
[rl =
Ilo =
The required sample size (n) after adjusting for the size of the population is given by Equation
B- 6.
Equation B- 6: Application of the Finite Population Correction Factor
n- ns* fpc
The margin of error can be introduced by sampling or via estimation error from a billing analysis,
or both. Billing analyses rely on consumption data that often contains variability not explained by
weather or other independent variables. This inherent variability in the data introduces
uncertainty because program savings effects must be separated from underlying noise. The
standard errors of coefficients in the regression model quantify this uncertainty and allow a
margin of error to be calculated. Verified savings estimates always represent the point estimate
of total savings, or the midpoint of the confidence interval around the verified savings estimate
for the program. Equation B- 7 shows the formula used to calculate the margin of error for a
parameter estimate.
Equation B- 7: Error Bound of the Savings Estimate
Error Bound = se * (z _ stattstic)
Where
.se The standard error of the population parameter of interest (proportion of
customers installing a measure, realization rate, total energy savings,
etc.) This formula will differ according to the sampling technique utilized.
z - statisttc Calculated based on the desired confidence level and the standard
normal distribution.
The 90% confidence level is a widely accepted industry standard for reporting uncertainty in
evaluation findings. Unless otherwise noted, the confidence levels and precision values
presented in this report are at the 90% confidence level. The z-statistic associated with 90%
confidence is 1.645.
0 NexonT lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs B-5
APPENDIX B SAMPLING AND ESTIMATION
The evaluation team also reports the relative precision value associated with verified savings
estimates. When evaluators or regulators use the term "90/10", the 10 refers to the relative
precision of the estimate. The formula for relative precision shown in Equation B- 8:
Equation B- 8: Relative Precision of the Savings Estimate
Relative Precisiony" ffor Bound$he,ms)
rtf ied sautnss - V"-f l"d h"p*\r"r^)
An important attribute of relative precision to consider when reviewing achieved precision values
is that it is "relative" to the impact estimate. Therefore programs with low realization rates are
likely to have larger relative precision values because the error bound (in therms) is being
divided by a smaller number. This means two programs with exactly the same reported savings
and sampling error in absolute terms, with have very different relative precision values (example
in Table B- 2).
Table B- 2: Relative Precision Example
Program #1 t20%
Program#2 ! 10o/o
ln many cases a program-level savings estimate requires summation of the verified savings
estimates from several strata. ln order to calculate the relative precision for these program-level
savings estimates, the evaluation team used Equation B- 9 to estimate the error bound for the
program as a whole from the stratum-level error bounds.
Equation B- 9: Combining Error Bounds across Strata
Error BaLrndproorn^ =Errot' Bottndlrrorr*, * Error Boundlrrorurn * Error Boundlrroru*,
Using this methodology, the evaluation team developed verified savings estimates for the
program and an error bound for that estimate. The relative precision of the verified savings for
the program is then calculated by dividing the error bound by the verified savings estimate.
400,000 0.5 40,000 200,000
1.0400,000 40,000 400,000
Error Bound
(therms)
Verified
therms
Relative
Precision
(s0%)
Program
olNg@nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs 8-6
Reported therms : Realization Rate I
Appendix C Billing Analysis Regression Outputs
Fuel Efficiency Gas Penalty - All customers:
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct_id
Numlcer of obs
Number of groups
5585
216
R-sq:within =
between =
overalL =
4857
013 ?
2s30
obs per group: min =
avq =
max =
F(3,215)746 .65
0.0000corr(u i, xb) = -0.0891 Prob > F
(std. Err. adjusted for 2!6 clusters in acct id)
dai 1y_ccf Coef.
Robust
Std. Err t P>ltl [95* conf, Interval]
1 . post
avg_hdd
post*c. avg_hdd
1
1,.297666
. o9983'7 2
1392038
0078456
9.28
12 .'7 3
0.000
0.000
1.Ot-728'7
.084373
1,556045
.1153014
-.0211124 0468162
1518639
-3.19 0.002
0,119
-.0351416
- .53'72584
-.00827'73
.061407-.23'7925'7
s igma_u
sigma_e
rho
1.36'7 5925
1.3035812
.52394999 (fraction of variance due to u i)
Fuel Efficiency Gas Penalty - Existing gas customers:
Fixed-effects (within) reqression
Group vari"able: acct id
Number of obs
Num.lcer of groups
4232
134
R-sq: within = 0. 4885
between = 0.0090
overall = 0.2'740
obs per group: min =
avg =
6
31.6
38
corr(u_i, xb) = -0.0446
F(3,133)
Prob > F
99.24
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 134 clusters in acct id)
da i I y_ccf Coef
Robust
Std. Err t P>ltl 195? Conf. Intervall
1 . post
avg_hdd
1, .1,2022
141263'7
13113 92
0081243
8.54
12 .46
860831s
0857942
1..379608
.1173331
post*c. avg_hdd
1 -.41349'7 006880s
1518644
-1.96
-0.04
0.0s2
0.97r.
-.02'71064
-.305917
.0001124
.2948468cons-.0055351
si gma_u
sigma_e
rho
7 .52'7 357I
1.3993766
.54364485 (fraction of variance due to u i)
O N€J/onf tmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-l
6
25.9
38
0.000
0.000
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Fuel Efficiency Gas Penalty - New gas customers:
Fil:ed-effects (within) regression
croup variable: acct_id
R-sq: within = 0.5231
between = 0.0468
overall : 0.3821
corr(u i-, xb) : -0.0128
Number of obs
Number of groups
Obs per qroup
E(3,81)
Prob > F
1353
82
min =
avg =
6
16.5
28
115.84
0.0000
(Std, Err. adjusted for 82 clusters in acct id)
Robust
Std. Errdaily_ccf
1. post
avg_hdd
post+c. avg_hdd
1
sigma_u
s j- gma_e
rho
t P>ltl [959 Conf. Interval]
1.11177
064?s38
190973
009238
5.82
7.01
0.000
0.000
.-731-7 936
.0 4 63-7 32
7.49L't 46
.0831345
-.0024062
cons -.5268858
0097089
r.965997
-0.25
-2 .68
0.80s
0.009
-.02L1239
-. 9180576
.016911s
-.135714
82035883
87806036
.4660655 (fraction of variance due to u i)
O NeXOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-2
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Low lncome: Gas Conversion
Eixed-effects (within) regression
Group varlabfe: account
Number of obs
Number of groups 42
R-sq: withln = 0.'773'l
between = 0.0079
overall = 0.6305
obs per group: min =
avg =
25
29 .3
36
corr (u i, xb) = -0.0360
E(3,41)
Prob > F
110.33
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 42 clusters in account)
dai I y_therm Coef
Robust
Std. Ert r P>lrl [ 953 conf. Interval ]
I . post
avg_hdd
092),504
. o089'72
.061851
0062228
1.49
1.44
0.144
0.157
- .0327 603
-.0035952
2)-'7 0672
o275392
post #c. avg_hdd
1 o5'7 4141 0061739
082640t
9.30
2 .83
0.000
0. 007
0449456
06709s9
0698826
.400886cons233997
s i gma_u
s i gma_e
rho
38019198
58823285
29 4 652 6'7 (fractj-on of variance due to u i)
Low lncome: Gas Conservation
Fi::ed-effects (within) regression
croup variable: account
Nunlcer of obs
Number of groups
3486
98
R-sq: within = 0-'1262
between = 0.0649
overall = 0.5479
obs per group
avg =
28
3s.6
38
corr(u_i. xb) = 0.0101
F 13, 9't )
Prob > F
135. 90
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 98 clusters in account)
dai 1y_therm Coe f
Robus t
Std. Err r P>ltl [95t conf. rnterval]
1.post
avg_hdd
0415754
. a923'7 7
03514 98
0041111 19.33
0.244
0.000
- .028787 4
.0828885
1113381
1018535
post#c. avg_hdd
1 -.0085s35 .002436
01 552-7 3
-3.51 0.001
0.181
-.0133882
-.0481656
-.0037187
-2sl6361_cons 1017353 1.35
sigma_u
sigma_e
rho
1 9253633
.1 194024
54825805 (fraction of variance due to u i)
O N€x/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-3
APPENDIX C BILLI NG ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
HVAC Gas:
Program: gas-hvac
Month: 1
Fi xed-effectsGroup variable
R-sq: within
between
overal l
(w'ithin) regress'ion: acct--id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllAX =
F (2,L757)Prob>F =
3400
1758
0.
0.
0.
)420
0090
0562
11.9
2
420.36
0. 0000corr(u-'i, Xb) = 0.0005
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct_id)
I Robustdaily-usage I coef- std. Err. t P>ltl [95S conf. Interval]-+----------treatxpost | -.752L362 .0846004 -8.89 0.000 -.9180642 -.5862082post | 1.558654 .0611008 25.51 0.000 1,.438816 L.678492_cons | 4.374OO4 .0204158 2L4.25 0.000 4.133962 4.4L4O45-+----------sigma-u I 2.4909276sigma-e | 1.2113133rho I .8087487 (fraction of variance due to u_'i)
Program: gas-hvac
Month: 2
Fixed-effects (with'in) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: urithin = 0.2351
between = 0.0146overall = 0.0406
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lll8X =
F (2,1757)Prob>F :
3180
1758
257.22
0.0000
11.9
2
corr(u_i, xb) = 0.0145
(std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct-id)
dai.ly-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]
-f--- -- - -- --treatxpost | -.5266849 .0727948 -7.24 0.000 -.6694584 -.3839113post I 1.035026 .0504718 20.51 0-000 .9360345 1.134017_cons I 3.756011 .0L747t 214-94 0-000 ).72L757 3.790305
-f-- -- ------
2.0817854
L.O370723
.80117405
s'igma-u Isigma-e Irho I (fractiorr of variance due to u_i)
Lt N$//inf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C4
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: gas-hvac
Month: 3
Fixed-effects (within) regress'ionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: vfithin = 0.L770
between = 0.0090overall = 0.0289
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =av$ =max =
F (2,L757)Prob>F =
3377
L758
1
1.9
2
corr(u_i, Xb) = 0-0054 196. 5 30.0000
(Std. Err- adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct-id)
da'i 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpostpost
_cons -+----------sigma-u I 1.5914919sigma-e I .8097720Lrho I .79435005 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Prografi: gas-hvac
Month: 4
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variab1e: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.1431
between = 0.0075overa'll = 0.0211
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
F (2,L757)Prob>F =
3)73
L758
11.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0080 161.680.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err-t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-.25278L3
.4498318
1.993089
.0420437
.0265614
.0100899
-6.01
16.94
197.53
0.000
0.000
0.000
-.J352422
.3977366
L.9733
-.L703204
.501927
2.0L2878
s'l gnra_u 1.244AL46
. 59884882
.81189018
si gma_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u-i)
C1 N€)/onf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-5
| -.4176836 .Os68272 -7.35 0.000 -.5291396 -.3062276| .6992962 .037)922 18.70 0.000 .6259584 .772634tI 2.817138 .0116444 206.47 0.000 2.790)78 2.843899
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: gas-hvac
Month: 5
Fixed-effects (rrithin) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.1330
between = 0.0155overall = 0.0285
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0172
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =il&X =
F (2,L757)Prob>F =
3357
l_758
11.9
2
119.090.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct_id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpost | -.193627 -0339513 -5.7Opost I . 3454688 .0246955 13.99
-cons I 1.08694 .0080799 a34.52
0.000
0.0000.000
-. 26021,62.2970f32
1.071092
-.L270379
. 3939045
L.102787
s i gma*u
slgma erho
.8398705
.47966223
.75405013 (fraction of variance due to u-'i)
Program: gas-hvac
Month: 6
F'ixed-effects (w-ithin) regression
Group variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllilX =
F (2,L757)Prob>F =
3345
1758
R-sq: within
betweenoveral I
corr(u-i, Xb) = 0.0315
11.9
2
=0=0=0
02 59
0116
0104
16_ 690.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct_id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
RobustStd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpost | -.L275356post | .1254393
-cons I .7055945
si gma*u
s'r gma_e
rho
.o27225
_ 0217168
.0064334
-.1809324
.0828458
.6929766
-.0741389
.1680327
.7182125
-4.68
5.78
109.68
0
0
0
000
000
000
.67L28645
. 38199228
-75539407 (fraction of variance due to u_'i)
O N9/onf lmpact Evatuation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-6
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: g;rs-hvac
Month: 7
Fi xed-
Group
R-sq: within
between
overal I
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0040
effects (with'in) regress'ionvariable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: m'in =avg =lllilX =
F (2,L757)
Prob > F
0009
oo42
=0=0=0
0197
3301
L758
11.00
0- 0000
11.9
2
(std, Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct-id)
I Robustdaily-usage I coef- std. Err. * orlal [95,f Conf. rnterval]
--t--------treatxpost I --O92O793 .024617 -3.74 0.000 -.1403609 --0437977post | -.0047668 .0133049 -0- 36 O-72O -.0308618 .0213281
-cons | -6506858 -0057273 113.61 0.000 .6394527 .6619189
--t--------
s i gma-u
sr gma_e
rho
60682816
340350997607028L (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program: gas-hvacMonth: 8
Fixed-effects (within) regress'ionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0436
between = 0-0000overall = 0.0060
corr(u_i, xb) = -0.0047
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: m'in =avg =fiilX =
F (2,L757)
Prob > F
3294
1758
1.
1
9
2
30.24
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95% conf- rnterval]
treatxpostpost
_con5
si gma-u
s'lgmal-e
rho
-.1050191-.0707825.729)Ltt
.0320338
.0191071
.o074494
-1.2E-3.70
97.90
-.a67847s
-.1082575
.7L47005
-.0421906
- - o133076.74392t6
0.0010.0000.000
.79840L77
.44275L6
.76480503 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
0 NeXAnf lmpact Evatuation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-7
I
I
I
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
ram: gas-hvac
Month: 9
rixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: w'ithin = 0.0215
between = 0.0080overall = 0.0060
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0262
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
F (2,a7s7)
Prob > F
3315
1758
17.18
0.0000
1
1.9
2
(std- Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct-id)
dai'ly-usage Coef Robuststd. Err-t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]--+--------treatxpost | -.0832209 .0284889 -2.92 0.004 -.1390966 --0273452post | .LL43767 .0202352 5.65 0.000 .074689 .1540643
-cons I .9510419 .0066902 1,42.45 0.000 .9399204 .9661635--+--------sigma-u | .8183455sigma-e | -39745129
______ ___:!:-l--:99?11113_--ll::::i::-:l_yl:1::::-t:-:e-!:il-----
Program: gas-hvac
Month: 1-Q
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.3620
between = 0-0240overall = 0.0643
corr(u-i, Xb)= 0.0134
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =fiAX =
F (2,L7s7)Prob>F =
3 114
1758
11.9
2
439.77
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for l-758 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]
--f--------treatxpost | -.2266853 .0392568 -5.77 0.000 -.3036802 -.1-496903post | .687293 .028L475 24.42 0.000 .632087 .742499_cons I 1.612585 .0092125 L75.O4 0.000 1.594516 1.630653
si gma-u
s-! gma_e
rho
1.1111807
.54731244
.80532489 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
O N€//onl lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-8
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: gas_hvacMonth: 11
Fixed-effects (w'ithin) regression
Group variable: acct_id Number of obs
Number of groups 3 105
1758
R-sq: within = 0between = ooverall = 0
02 58
0035
Obs per group: min =avg LllliX =
11.9
20063
corr(u_i, xb) = 0.0149 F (2,L757)
Prob > F
16. 03
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct_'id)
Idaily-usage I
Robustcoef- std. Err t P>ltl [95% Conf. Interval]
treatXpostpost
_cons
-. 312615 .0629988 -5. 28 0.000 -.4561955 - .2090745.0537528 .0370316 1.45 0-L47 -.0188817 .L263873
3. 559686 .0148569 239.60 0.000 3. 530547 3.588825
si gma-u
s 1 gmar_e
rho
1.8461457
.88280642
.81389174 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Program: gas_hvac
Month: 121
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-'id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllilX =
F(2,L757)Prob>F =
3295
1758
R-sq: within =0=0=0
0466
005 5
0097
11.9
2
between
overal I
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0091 38. 68
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 1758 clusters in acct_id)
da'i 1y-usage Coef
RobustStd. Err.t P>ltl [95% Conf. Interval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
.0767646
.0413662.0180889
-8.556.36
257 .69
0
0
0
000 - . 8065 164
.1819827
4.625938
-.5054L72
.344247
4.696894
000
000
si gma_u
slgma erho
2.1962481.0750856.8]243834 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
A N9/onf tmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-9
- . 65 59768
.263r.1494.661416
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Shell Gas:
Program: gas-she11
Month: 1
rixed-effects (w'ithin) regressionGroup variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg -max =
F (2,L357)
Prob > F
2610
1358
358.87
0.0000
R-sq: within
betweenoveral I
corr(u_i, xb) = -0.0033
=0=0=0
37L3
0115
0666
11.9
2
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct_id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
RobustStd. Err t P>ltl [95% Conf. rnterval]
--f--------treatxpost I --6599021 .0871317 -7 -57 0.000 -.8308295 -.4889747post I L-47O5L6 .0638098 23- 05 0.000 L-34534 1. 595693
-cons I 4.108758 .0208786 196.79 0.000 4-0678 4.L497L5--+--------
s'1 gma_u
s1 gma_e
rho
2.L529876
1.0890427
.79626548 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
Program: gas-she11
Month: 2
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =fiAX =
F (2,L357)
Prob > F
2598
1358
249.69
0.0000
R-sq: within
between
overa-l I
2778
0115
o47L
1
1.9
2
=0=0=0
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0074
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
RobustStd. Err.--+--------treatxpost I --374855 .0721623 -5.19 0.000 -.5164168 -.2332932post | .9542568 .0489566 19"49 0"000 .8582179 1.050296
-cons | 3.484393 .0172328 2O2-20 0.000 3.450587 3.5L8199--+--------
dai 1y-usage Coef
s't
51
a otlal [95% Conf. Interval]
(fraction of variance due to u_i)
gma_u L.79217
89906643
.7989708
gma_e
rho
O N€xi0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natura! Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-l0
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Prografl: gasshell
Month: 3
IF'i xed-effects (w'i thi n
Group variable: acct-)'l d
regress i on Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =fiilX =
2592
1358
R-sq: within = 0.2211
between = 0.0066overall = 0.0328
11.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0017
F(2,L357)Prob > F
186.51
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-'id)
dai 1y-usage Coef.
RobustStd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpost I -.3363355 .0543582 -6.19 0.000 --4429707 --2297OO3post | .6503458 .0368609 L7 -64 0.000 . 5780352 -7226563
-cons | 2.655916 .012952 205.06 0.000 2.630508 2-681324
--f--------
5'1
s'l
gma-u I 1.36821r.
.67581107
.803875
gma_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u-i)
=:JProgram: gas-she1 1Month: 4
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =lllilX =
2590
1358
R-sq : w'i thi n
between
overal'l
=0=0=0
2163
0048
0325
t_1.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0020
F (2,L157)
Prob > F
L76.4L0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
I Robustdai]y_usage I coef- std. Err. t P>ltl [95% conf. Interval]--+--------treatxpost | -.2141616 -040387 -5.30 0.000 -.2933893 -.1349339post | -4649357 -O278L L6-72 0.000 .4103805 .519491
-cons I L-84L42 .00961-18 191-- 58 0.000 L.822564 l-.860276--+--------si gma-u
s1 gma_e
rho
.99823528
.50154495
.79844302 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
A NeXAnf lmpact Evatuation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-11
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Progran: gasshel IMonth: 5
rixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = O.2546
between = 0.0019overall = 0-0481
corr(u-i, Xb) : -0.0029
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group
F (2 ,1357)Prob > F
2582
1358
min
avg
max
11.9
2
2L5.640.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
I Robustdaily_usage I coef- std. Err. t p>ltl t95X conf. Intervall
--t--------treatxpost I -.0719958 -028598L -2-52 0.012 -.1280971 -.0158945post I -326602 .019338 16.89 0.000 .2886663 .3645376
-cons I .946LO4 -0067856 139.43 0.000 .9327926 .9594153
--f--------
s i gma-u
s r gm;r_e
rho
.61373L87
. 35413001
.75022037 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
ProgramMonth: r
: gas-she11l
6
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0-0470
between = 0.0001overall = 0.0062
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min
av9
max
2572
1358
1
t_.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = -0-0048
F(2,1357)Prob > F
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
I Robustdaily_usage I coef. std. Err- t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
--f--------
37.OL
0.0000
treatXpostpost
_cons
-.0237025
.0898562
. 5869181
.024279L
.011_807
.0048066
-L.17
7.6A1-22.\t
-. 0634843
- 0666S41-
.5774888
0160793
1130182
5963473
243
000
000
0
0
0
--f--------sigma-u I -45681643sigma-e I .25090838rho | -7682378L (fraction of variance due to u-i)
A NOOnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natura! Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-12
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Prografi: gas;hell
Month: 7
Fixed-effects (w-ithin) regressionGroup variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =iliX =
2556
1358
R-sq: within
between =0=0=0
0003
0001
0000
11.9
2overat'l
corr(u-i, Xb) = -0.0092
F(2,
Prob
13s7)>F 0_ 130.8766
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
I Robustdaily-usage I coef- std. Err. t p>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]--+--------treatxpostpost
_con5
-. 0092189
.0002681
.529270L
.0201965
. 01015 36
.0047527
-0.460.03111.36
0
0
0
648
979
000
- - 0488386
-. 0196502
.5199466
.0104009
.0201865
.5385935
sisf
gma_u .45L32045
.248L9482
.76779946
gmil_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Program; gas-shell
Month: 8
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id Number of obs
Number of groups 2546
1358
R-sq: within
between =0=0=0
0254
0003
0025
obs per group: min
av9
max
1
1.9
2overail
corr(u-i, xb) = -0-0017
F (2,L357)
Prob > F
22.58
0.0000
(std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
da'i 1y-usage Coef
RobustStd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
--?--------treatxpost I -.0107164 .0193448 -0.55 0.580 -.0486653 .0272325post | -.o4837O7 .0083311 -5.81 0.000 --0647].4 -.0320275
-cons | . 5842825 .0045373 L28.77 0.000 .57518L7 . 5931834
--t--------
s i gma*u
s1 gma_e
rho
5L287662
2 3700881
82402748 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
A NOrunf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-13
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: gasshelllMonth: 9
Fixed-effects (within
Group var-iable: acct-'
R-sq: within
)
1
reg ress i on Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min
avg
max
2547
1358
betweenoveral I
11.9
2
=0=0=0
d
0726
0001
0083
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0019
F (2,t357)
Prob > F
54.37
0.0000
(Std. rrr. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd- Err.a orlal [95% Conf. rnterval]
treatxpostpost
_con5
-.0181075.L23]2t2
.8120188
.0216298
_ 0139327
.005543
-o.77
8. 85
146" 50
o.444 -.0644624 .0282474
0- 000 .0959892 .15065320.000 .8011451 .8228925
si gma-u
s'r gma_e
rho
.58624232
.28953431
.80391083 (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct-id
R-sq: w'ithin = 0.4386
between = 0.0134overall = 0.0785
Program: gas-she11
Month: 10
corr(u-i, xb) = 0.0005
Number of obs
Number of groups
obs per group: min =avg =max =
F (2,L357)Prob>F =
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct_id)
I Robustdai'ly_usage I Coef. std. Err. t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterva]l
--f--------
2 541
t_158
11.9
2
46L-23
0.0000
-.1507285
-6278528
1.488r.39
.03663s8
"026L374.0085268
-4.11 0.000 -.2225975 -.078859524-O2 0.000 .5765788 .6791269L74.52 0.000 L.4714LL 1.504866
.9L6847L2
.44547L87
.80901356 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
O N€xi0nf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-14
treatxpost Ipost I_cons I-------------+--sigma-u Isigma-e Irho I
APPENDIX C BILLING ANALYSIS REGRESSION OUTPUTS
Program: gasshell
It4onth: 11
Fixed-effects (within) regression
Group variable: acct_id
R-sq: within = 0-0091
between = 0.0021-overall = 0.0025
Number of obs
Number of groups
2537
1158
obs per group: min =avg =
1ll3X =
1
1.el
2
corr(u-'i, xb) = 0.0178 F(2,L357)Prob > F
4.20
0.0153
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct_id)
dai 1y-usage Coef
Robuststd. Err.t P>ltl [95% conf. rnterval]
treatxpostpost
_cons
-.LL77523-. 0r-r-2636
3.315018
.0557469
.0331096
.oL30232
-2.aL-0.34
254.55
0. ol5
o.734
0. 000
- _227LLL7
-.0762L5L
1.28949
- . 008 3928
. 05 36879
3.340585
s'I
5'l
gma_u 1.5865498
.68046293
.84462974
gmil_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u-i)
Prografi: gas-she11
t4onth: 12
Fixed-effects (within) regressionGroup variable: acct-id
R-sq: within = 0.0362
between = 0.0023overall = 0.0053
Number of obs
Number of groups 25 35
1158
obs per group: min =avg =fiAX =
11.9
2
corr(u-i, xb) = -0.0032
F (2,L357)
Prob > F
24.58
0.0000
(Std. Err. adjusted for 1358 clusters in acct-id)
dai 1 y-us age Coef
Robuststd. Err t P>ltl [95S Conf. Interval]--+--------treatxpost I --4647889 .0695834 -6.68 0.000 -.60L29L7 -.3282862post I .2270626 .0404346 5.62 0.000 .L4774t5 .1063837
-cons | 4-292982 .0162496 264-L9 0.000 4.261105 4.32486--+--------
s't
5'l
gma_u 2.O574LO2
.84909509
.85446565
gma_e
rho (fraction of variance due to u_i)
L, NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-201 7 Energy Efficiency Programs C-1 5
O NeXAnf lmpact Evaluation of ldaho Natural Gas 2016-2017 Energy Efficiency Programs C-1
Exhibit No. 2:
Avista 2017 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
Exhibit No. 2: Avista 2017 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
AlEwsra
ldaho 2017 DSIV Annual
Conservation Report & Cost-
Effective ness An a lys is
June 29,2018
Table of Gontents
1 Executive Summary......
1.1 Cost-Effectiveness
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances..
1.3 Third-Pafi Evaluation
1.4 2017 Program Highlights, Challenges and Changes
1.5 2017 Portfolio Trends............
2 Gost-Effectiveness
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
1
2
3
4
4
6
9
2.3 Natura! Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
2.4 Combined Fue! Cost Effectiveness Results.............
3.1 Residential
3.1.1 Program Changes
3.1.1 .1 Residential Program Discontinuations ....
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustmenfs...........
3.1.2 HVAC Program
3. 1.3 Water Heat Pro9ram...........
3.1.4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
3.1.5 Fuel Efficiency ....
3.1 .6 Residential Lighting
3.1.7 Shell
3.1.8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
3.1 .9 Residential Trend Analysis
3.1.9.1 Residential Lighting
3.1.9.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program .......
3.1.9.3 Residential Shell Programs.
3.1.9.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reporfs....
.17
.18
.18
.18
.18
.19
.19
.19
.19
.19
.27
.27
.28
........29
11
13
15
17
17
30
3.2.1 Program Changes 33
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.2.2 2017 Program Details 33
39
39
39
40
41
47
49
49
49
50
52
53
3.3 Nonresidential
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
Program Changes..
Prescriptive Path.
Site Specific Path......
Small Business Pro9ram...........
Non-Residential Trend Analysis
3.4 Customer Outreach
3.4.1 Residential Customer Outreach
3.4.2 Low-lncome Customer Outreach
3.4.3 Nonresidential Customer Outreach.............
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V)..
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency
5.1 Generation and Distribution.............. ............53
6 Regional Market Transformation...56
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share ..........56
6.2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share...... ..............57
6.3 2017 Costs 57
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures 58
8 Tariff Rider Balances 60
I Actual to Annual Conservation Plan Gomparison....................... 61
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results ...........62
10.1 Electric Gost Effectiveness Results 63
10.2 Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results 65
10.3 Combined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Results.... ..............67
Appendices:
Appendix A: ldaho 2016-2017 Electric lmpact Evaluation
Appendix B: ldaho 2016-2017 NaturalGas lmpact Evaluation
Appendix C: 2016-2017 Process Evaluation Report
^#vrsta
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysisll
1 Executive Summary
The 2017 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes Avista Utilities'
(Avista) annual energy efficiency achievements for its ldaho electric and natural gas customers.
These programs are intended to deliver all cost-effective conservation with the funding provided
through Avista's Schedules 91 and 191, also known as the "Tariff Rider" which is a system
benefit charge applied to all electric and natural gas retail sales.
Avista's 2017 target as reported in the 2017 lntegrated Resource Plan (lRP) is 1'1,'186 MWh. ln
2017, Avista acquired 42,373 MWh (gross verified savings) in ldaho, or 379o/o of its target.
Primary drivers for electric savings included the nonresidential Prescriptive Lighting and Site
Specific projects. Residential HVAC, residentialfuel efficiency, residential lighting efforts and
small business projects also contributed a fair amount to the overall savings contribution. ln
2017, Avista's ldaho natural gas efficiency portfolio delivered 305,508 therms in savings (gross
verified savings), achieving 155% o'f the Company's 2017 natural gas target of 197,640 therms
as noted in the 2017 lRP. Primary drivers forthe natural gas savings include residential
prescriptive HVAC and water heat measures, small business projects, and nonresidential
prescriptive measu res.
ln 2017 , over $1.4 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to
offset the cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the
residential portfolio contributed over 5,300 MWh and over 232,000 therms to the annual energy
savings. ln addition, more than 1,500 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were
incented. Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 23,000 individual measures.
Avista's tariff riders funded more than $6.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in
nonresidential and small business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 36,500
MWh and over 71,000 therms in annual first-year energy savings. A summary of acquired
savings in 2017 by sector is provided for both fuels in Tables ES-1 and ES-2 below.
Table ES-1:2017 ldaho Electric Energy Savings (Gross Verified)
Residential 5,306,098
Low lncome 380,170
Nonresidential 36,536,737
Subtotal 42,223,004
Distribution 150,000
Total 42,373,004
1
kwhSegment i
^*--gtsta
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table ES-2: 2017 ldaho NaturalGas Savings (Gross Verified)
Residential 232,899
Low lncome 1,427
Nonresidential 71j82
Total 305,508
The above mentioned acquisition has been delivered through local energy efficiency programs
managed by the utility or third-party contractors. Avista also funds a regional market
transformation effort through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), however,
reported electric energy savings, cost-effectiveness and other related information is specific to
local programs unless otherwise noted. The savings indicated above are gross verified savings
based on the evaluation of the programs.
1.1 Gost-Effectiveness
Avista judges the effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio based upon a number of
metrics. Two of the most commonly applied metrics are the UCT (utility cost test)l and the TRC
(total resource cost). The UCT is a benefit-to-cost test from the utility perspective including
incentives and excluding net costs and non-energy benefits of participants related to energy
efficiency services. The TRC test is a benefit-to-cost test from the customer perspective
including all measure costs and non-energy benefits and excluding incentives. Both tests
provide insight as to the net value to all customers.
Benefit-to-cost ratios in excess of 1.00 indicate that the benefits exceed the costs. ln 2017 ,
electric and natural gas gross TRC was 2.69 and 0.62, respectively. Electric and naturalgas
UCT test benefit-cost ratios were 4.33 and 2.35, respectively. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 present
the UCT cost-effectiveness results for the electric and gas portfolios.
1 Also known as the PAC (program administrato. cost) test.
2
Segment Therms
lD 2017 DSM Annual Gonservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4vtsta
Table ES-3: 2017 lO Electric Utility Cost Test (UGT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $40,736,366
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$759,633
UCT Benefits $39,976,734
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
lncentive Costs $8,209,952
UCT Costs $9,238,716
UCT Ratio 4.33
Net UCT Benefits $30,738,017
Table ES-4: 2017 lD Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $2,105,243
Electric Avoided Costs $o
UCT Benefits $2,105,243
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $134,673
lncentive Costs $763,057
UCT Costs $897,729
UCT Ratio 2.35
Net UCT Benefits $1,207 ,514
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances
Beginning in 2017, the ldaho electric tariff rider balances were underfunded by $ S.g million.
During 2017, $7.3 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund electric energy efficiency
while $11.0 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The $3.6 million
3
$40,339,290 $397,077
-$688,086 -$71,546
$39,651,203 $325,530
$963,894 $64,871
$7,66s,243 $544,709
$8,629,137 $609,580
4.60 0.53
$31,022,067 -$284,049
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
$2,094,132 $11,11 1
$0 $0
$2,094J32 $1 1,11 1
$130,451 $4,222
$608,1 37 $154,920
$738,587 $159,142
2.84 0.07
$1,355,545 -$148,031
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
I Regular lncomer Portfolio
AE-rtsra
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conseryation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
: Regular lncome: Portfolio
under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end underfunded balance of $9.6
million. The primary driver for the underfunded balance was the unanticipated high participation
in the nonresidential lighting program in2017. On September 29th,2017, the ldaho Commission
approved the Company's application to increase its Energy Efficiency Rider's funds to recover
those costs over 36 months. That application was approved and made effective October 1,
20172.
The ldaho gas tariff rider balance was underfunded by $76,913 as of the start of 2017 . During
2017, $1.4 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund natural gas energy efficiency while
$1.1 million was expended to operate natural gas energy efficiency programs, resulting in an
ending balance of $180,889 (overfunded).
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2016-2017 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost-
effectiveness results presented in this 2017 Annual Report are based on the evaluation findings
and are presented as gross verified savings.
The impact and process evaluation reports can be found in the Appendix.
1.4 2017 Program Highlights, Challenges and Ghanges
Avista practices active management and continuous process improvement when delivering
energy efficiency programs. Through the evaluation team's on-going evaluation activities and
through internal active management, Avista recognizes program successes and challenges
throughout the year and practices continuous process improvement to strive for the delivery of
successfuland cost-effective energy efficiency programs. Some of Avista's 2017 program
highlights as well as some challenges are described below.
Hard to Reach Markets: A highlight for 2017 is Avista's participation in the Small-tr/edium
Business Program that started in mid-2015 with an initial contract period of 2 years with
SBW Consulting. This program was well received by our hard to reach small business
customers and the contract was extended to the end of 2017 which resulted in a
successful year. As the program was coming to a close, Avista chose to leverage the
industry knowledge and capabilities of its existing conservation vendor, SBW by hiring
them to perform the Company's lVlultifamily Direct Install Pilot Program. This pilot
2 Case No. AVU-E-17-06, Order No. 33897
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
I
4
Aii-rtsra
I
program is designed to target a hardto-reach segment of rental customers living in
complexes of 4 or more units. Traditionally, this demographic has been identified as
underserved in Avista's region and the efforts of SBW help to serve these customers.
Liqhtino Proorams: The Company's Residential and Non-Residential Lighting Programs
experienced an unprecedented level of conservation achievement throughout the year.
The Company's lighting offerings maintained a high level of cost effectiveness while
providing customers with access to affordable LED lighting. As the market transforms,
the Company adapts its offerings, incentives, and savings values. During 2017, the
Company discontinued incentives for CFL product buy-downs to align with the current
market conditions and transitioned its efforts to LED lamps and fixtures only.
Residential Prescriptive: Fuel Conversions and Lighting programs accounted for the
majority of rebate requests. Fuel conversions continue to drive the residential rebates
program and Avista attributes some of the growth to partnering with our local HVAC
contractors to better market the savings to the customer. This effort materialized
through the integration of a preferred HVAC contractor list that would be provided on the
website to customers that expressed an interest in fuel conversions or furnace efficiency
upgrades.
Home Enerov Reports: The OPower/Oracle Home Energy Report program ended in
2017 with the last report sent in December of that year. Avista's Home Energy Report
has been a successful avenue to achieve conservation for our customers. As the report
program comes to an end, Avista looks to incorporate new behavior programs by
leveraging new technologies such as Advanced Metering lnfrastructure (AMl) and an
alternative customer energy use comparison system.
Low-lncome Measures: The Company is pleased that, through work with our advisory
group, it was successful in identifying and adding new measures for Washington and
ldaho customers in 2017. By working with our advocates and advisors, the Company
saw a substantial increase in the number of Approved Measures available for the 2017
program year. While it is understood that cost-effective energy efficiency programs are
a main requirement, the ability to serve the low income customer cost effectively is a
constant challenge. Avista has taken steps to pay for the value of the energy saved
which in some cases becomes an amount that is not meaningful to the agency to install.
I
I
Continuing the integrated resource planning and conservation potential assessment processes,
Avista reviews existing and potential programs as part of the DSM business planning process.
ln 2017, through adaptive management, programs were modified to reflect updated savings and
cost information that affected incentive levels.
ln 2017, the Company began implementation of iEnergy/DSM Central which is an enterprise
DSM software intended to manage data across multiple internal software programs and allow
5 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
the DSM team to utilize the information in one place. This sofhruare will also be a benefit to
external stakeholders including regulators, advisors, and trade allies. The Company is on pace
to functionalize the softrruare in 2018 with the bulk of its programs managed in the program by
2020.
Though the nature of this report is to look backwards on the performance of the previous year,
successes and lessons from this process are applied during the fonvard-looking business
planning process to inform and improve program design, including program modification and
termination where necessary. Avista remains committed to continuing to deliver responsible and
cost-effective energy efficiency programs to our customers.
1.5 2017 Portfolio Trends
Avista experienced increased savings in 2017 compared to its previous years and much of the
change is attributed to the increasing popularity of LED lighting, TLED lighting and Fuel
Conversions. Avista's 42,223,004 kWh of energy savings from 2017 is slightly higher than its
2016 acquisition of 38,149,383 kwh3. Nonresidential programs increased their conservation
acquisition from21,305,147 kWh in 2016 to 36,536,737 kWh in 2017, a71o/oincrease. Savings
acquired through the Company's residential program decreased from 9,071,745 kwh in 20'tG to
6,045,191 kWh in 20174, a 33% decrease.
3 Gro$ verified savings from the 2016-2017 ldaho Electric lmpact Evaluation Report. All 2O16 values contained within this report
are verified gross savings and will not match the values in the 2016 Annual Report (which are adjusted reported gross) unless
otherwise noted.
4 Amounts exclude the Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports. (5,306,09S kWh less -739,094 impact of Opower = 6,045,1 91 kwh)
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis6
*vtsr.a
Figure ES-l: ldaho Electric Energy Savings 2014-2017s
ldaho Electric Energy Savings 20L4-2Ot7
*Low-lncome is included in the overall total
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
2017,42,223,004
2016, 38,149,383
20t4, 1,6,2L4,000
2015, L7,660,188
201,s, 1,5,666,200 20t7,17,t86,000
20t6, tL,213,OOO
2014, 1,3,460,631
20L4 2015 20L6 20L7-5,000,000
I Residential I Nonresidential IOpowel
-Jst3l -lRP
Target
Of Avista's overall Electric savings porlfolio, Non-Residential Prescriptive programs produced
58% of the overall savings, while Non-Residential Site Specific programs accounted for 25o/o of
the overall savings. Residential Lighting, which achieved slightly more savings than in 2016,
accounted for 8o/o of the overall savings. See Figure ES-2 for an illustration of these metrics.
s Savings numbers tot 2014 are unverified gross wtile 2015-2017 are verified gross savings.
I
7 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
8
Figure ES-Z:2017 ldaho Electric Savings Portfolio
2OL7 lD Electric Gross Verified Savings Portfolio
Non-Residential Site
9%
Speciflc
25%
Everything
Else
Non-Residential
Perscriptive
58%
*vtsr,a
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
tighting
2 Cost-Effectiveness
The 2017 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes the Company's annual
energy efficiency achievements of its DSM programs.
Cost-effectiveness was reviewed using four of the five California Standard Practice Tests
including the Utility Cost Test (UCD6, Total Resource Cost (TRC), Participant Cost Test (PCT),
and Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) tests. For this annual report, cost-effectiveness of DSM
programs is based on unverified adjusted gross savings using methods consistent with those
laid out in the California Standard Practice Manual for Economic Analysis of Demand-Side
Programs and Projects as modified by the Council. Table 2-1 summarizes the allocation of cost-
effectiveness components as a cost or benefit to each cost-effectiveness test.
Table 2-l : Cost-Effectiveness Component !nputs
Utility
Costs
& Capacity Avoided Benefit Benefit Benefit
Utility
Cost Test
(ucr)
Total
Resource
Cost (TRc)
Participant
Cost Test
(Pcr)
Rate
lmpact
Measure
(RrM)
Component
Non-Utility Energy & Capacity Energy
Costs
Non-Energy Benefit lmpacts
Equipment and
Benefit Benefit
Benefit Benefit
Cost Costlnstallation Costs
Program Non-incentive (admin) Costs Cost Cost Cost
lncentive Payments Cost Benefit Gost
The cost-effectiveness calculations only include non-energy benefits where the values are
reasonably defensible and quantifiable for a limited number of measures, including water
savings, equipment replacement and operation and maintenance benefits. The calculations also
include health and human safety non-energy benefits (dollar for dollar) for the low-income
programs. Non-energy benefits that are not included, because they are not easily quantifiable,
include benefits for arrearage, health/safety/comfort, system reliability, and site specific air
emissions to name a few.
6 Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
I
AEsrsra
lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Low-lncome conservation items have been separately identified from the Regular lncome
portfolio in the following tables. For those items, the costs associated with low-income also
lncludes amounts funded to the Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies.
Cost effectiveness results within this report are based on adjusted reported savings. Energy
savings reported by Avista's implementation team (both external and internalto Avista) were
reviewed by the Company's external evaluator and adjusted for any major discrepancies in
reporting. The savings estimates, and therefore the cost effectiveness results, represent gross
energy acquisition.
The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. The term
"Residual" is used in lieu of the term "Net" as not to be confused with TRC benefits and costs
where Net to Gross adjustments have been applied.
Avoided costs used for the cost-effectiveness valuation of the 2017 eleclric and natural gas
programs are the avoided costs from the most recently filed electric and natural gas lRPs.
ln summary, electric and natural gas UCT benefit-cost ratios are 4.33 and 2.35, respectively.
Electric and natural gas gross TRC is 2.69 and 0.62, respectively. Table 2-2 through Table 2-13
illustrate electric, naturalgas, and combined fuel cost-effectiveness, respectively. Regular
income includes all programs offered in the residential and nonresidential sectors (not including
NEEA) and low-income includes all programs offered in the low-income sector.
10 lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vrsta
2.1 Electric Gost Effectiveness Results
fable 2-2:2017 lD Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UCT Gosts
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
Table 2-3: 2017 lD Electric Total Resource Gost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Non-Energy Benefits
TRC Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
TRC Costs
TRC Ratio
Residual TRC Benefits
$40,736,366
-$759,633
$39,976,734
$1,028,765
$8,209,952
$9,238,716
4.33
$30,738,017
$40,736,366
-$759,633
$144,492
$40,121,226
$1,028,765
$13,876,629
$14,905,393
2.69
$40,339,290 $397,077
-$688,086 -$71,546
$39,6s1,203 $325,530
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$8,629,137 $609,580
4.60 0.53
$31,022,067 -$284,049
Low lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$40,339,290 $397,077
-$688,086 -$71,546
$e,896 $134,596
$39,661,100 $460,126
$963,894 $64,871
$13,384,660 $491,969
$ 14,348,554 $556,840
2.76 0.83
$25,312,546 -$96,7'14
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AFvtsra
11 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$25,215,832
i Overall Portfolio
Table 2-4: 2017 lD Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Electric Bill Reduction $51,615,518
Gas Bill Reduction -$52,444
Non-Energy Benefits $144,492
Participant Benefits $51,707,566
Customer Costs $13,876,629
lncentive Received -$8,209,952
Participant Costs $s,666,677
Participant Ratio 9.12
Net Participant Benefits $46,040,889
Table 2-5: 20171O Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $40,736,366
Non-Participant Benefits $40,736,366
Electric Revenue Loss $51,61s,s18
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
Customer lncentives $8,209,952
Non-Participant Costs $60,854,235
RIM Ratio 0.67
-$20,1 1 7,868
$s1 ,1 1 2,1 58 $503,361
-$48,418 -$4,027
$9,896 $134,596
$51,073,637 $633,929
$13,384,660 $491,969
-$7,665,243 -$544,709
$5,719,417 -$s2,740
8.93 N/A
$45,354,220 $686,669
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$40,339,290 $397,077
$40,339,290 $397,077
$51,112,158 $503,361
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$59,741,294 $1,112,940
0.68 0.36
-$19,402,005 -$715,864
: Regular lncome: Portfolio
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
.#'rrtrsr.a
12 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Net RIM Benefits
2.3 Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-6: 2017 lD Natural Gas Utility Gost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Electric Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UCT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
Table 2-7:2017 lD Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRG) (Gross)
$2,105,243
$0
$2,10s,243
$134,673
$763,057
$897,729
2.35
$1,207,s14
$2,105,243
$0
$91,144
$2,196,387
$134,673
$3,419,197
$3,553,869
0.62
-$1,357,482
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Electric Avoided Costs
Non-Energy Benefits
TRC Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
TRC Costs
TRC Ratio
Residual TRC Benefits
$2,094,132 $11,111
$0 $0
$2,094,132 $11,11 1
$130,451 $4,222
$608, I 37 $154,920
$738,587 $159,142
2.84 0.07
$1,355,545 -$148,031
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$2,094,132 $11,111
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$2,093,785 $102,602
$130,451 $4,222
$3,282,758 $136,439
$3,413,208 $140,661
0.61 0.73
-$1,319,424 -$38,059
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^#vrsra.
13 lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 2-8: 2017 lO Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Gas Bill Reduction $4,227,226
Electric Bill Reduction $0
Non-Energy Benefits $91,144
Participant Benefits $4,318,369
Customer Costs $3,419,197
lncentive Received -$608,1 37 -$763,0s7
Participant Costs $2,674,621 $2,656,140
Participant Ratio 1.57 NiA 1.63
Net Participant Benefits $1,529,188 $133,041 $1,662,230
Table 2-9: 2017lD Natural Gas Rate Impact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Gas Avoided Cost Savings $2,105,243
Non-Participant Benefits $2,105,243
Gas Revenue Loss $4,227,226
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $134,673
Customer lncentives $763,057
Non-Participant Costs $5,124,955
RIM Ratio 0.42 0.41
Net RIM Benefits -$3,019,712
$4,204,157 $23,069
$o $0
-$347 $91,491
$4,203,810 $114,560
$3,282,758 $136,439
-$154,920
-$18,481
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$11,111
$2,094J32 $11,111
$4,204,1s7 $23,069
$130,451 $4,222
$608,1 37 $154,920
$4,942,744 $182,211
0.06
-$2,848,612 -$171 ,100
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
14 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$2,094,132
^#vrsta
2.4 Gombined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-10: 20171D Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $40,736,366
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,345,611
UCT Benefits $42,081,977
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,163,437
lncentive Costs $8,973,008
UCT Costs $10,136,446
UCT Ratio 4.15
Net UCT Benefits $31,945,531
Table 2-11: 2017 lD Combined Fue! Tota! Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $40,736,366
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,345,611
Non-Energy Benefits $235,636
TRC Benefits $42,317,613
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,163,437
Customer Costs $17,29s,82s
TRC Costs $18,459,263
TRC Ratio 2.29
Residual TRC Benefits $23,858,350
$40,339,290 $397,077
$1,406,046 -$60,435
$41,74s,336 $336,641
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$9,367,724 $768,722
4.46 0.44
$32,377,612 -$432,081
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$40,339,290 $397,077
$1,406,046 -$60,435
$9,549 $226,087
$41,754,885 $562,728
$1,094,344 $69,093
$16,667,418 $628,408
$17,761,762 $697,s01
2.35 0.81
$23,993,123 -$134,772
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AE-ttsta
15 lD 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 2-12: 2017 lD Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Electric Bill Reduction $51,615,518
-$4,027 -$s2,444
Non-Energy Benefits $235,636
Participant Benefits $56,025,935
Customer Costs $17,295,82s
lncentive Received -$8,273,379 -$699,629 -$8,973,008
Participant Costs $8,394,038 $8,322,817
Participant Ratio 6.59 5.73
Net Participant Benefits $46,883,408 $47,703,1 1 9
Table 2-13: 2017lD Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $42,433,422 $42,841 ,610
Non-Participant Benefits $42,841 ,610
Electric Revenue Loss $s5,842,744
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,163,437
$8,973,008
Non-Participant Costs $64,684,039 $65,979,190
RIM Ratio 0.65
Net RIM Benefits -$23,1 37,580
$51 ,1 '12,158 $503,361
-$48,418
$9,549 $226,087
$55,277,446 $748,489
$16,667,418
-$71,221
$628,408
N/A
$819,710
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$408,1 88
$42,433,422 $408,1 88
$55,316,315 $526,429
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$1 ,295,151
0.66 0.32
-$22,250,617 -$886,963
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AFrtsra
16 lD 2017 DSM Annual Gonservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Gas Bill Reduction
Customer lncentives
3 Programs
3.1 Residential
The Company's residential portfolio is composed of several approaches to engage and
encourage customers to consider energy efficiency improvements within their home.
Prescriptive rebate programs are the main component of the portfolio, but are augmented by a
variety of other interventions. These include: upstream buy-down of low-cost lighting and water
saving measures, select distribution of low-cost lighting and weatherization materials, direct
install programs and a multi-faceted, multichannel outreach and customer engagement effort.
Nearly $1.5 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the residential
portfolio contributed over 5,300 MWh and over 230,000 therms to the 2017 annual energy
savings.
3.1.1 Program Changes
Program changes made at the beginning of 2017 to the residential programs include the
addition of new program offerings, discontinuation of programs, and changes to eligibility or
incentive levels. Avista communicates program changes once the Annual Conservation Plan is
finalized and those changes become effective at the beginning of the year. ln addition, some
program changes are made throughout the year as necessary but these are less typical.
For nonresidential programs, rebates were updated to reflect business planning analysis to
include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. Changes were effective
January 1,2017 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31,2017 for 2016
measures and amounts. This 90-day grace period is designed to allow for a smooth transition
when incentive levels change. This provides a timely and balanced approach that gives
adequate time for customers close out their "in process" projects in a fair and non-disruptive
way.
The following outlines additions, adjustments and discontinuations of residential programs and
incentive levels that took place during the 2017 program year.
17 lO 2017 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^A,Fvlsr.a
3.1.1.1 Residential Program Discontinuations
The following measures and/or programs were discontinued from the residential portfolio
Effective August 1,2017 we no longer pay on CFL product buy-downs through the
Simple Steps (CLEAResult) Program. We moved to only paying on LED lamps and
fixtures.
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustments
Existing rebate amounts were increased, and savings values adjusted for the following
measures:
Effective October 1,2017 the Table of Eligible ltleasures and Annual Generator Busbar
Savings and the Product lncentive Ranges were amended in our CLEAResult contract.
The remaining sub-sections outline each residential program offered in 2017 and the verified
participation, incentives, and energy savings, among other program achievements.
3.1.2 HVAC Program
Electric customers with electric home heat are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a
variable speed motor on their forced air heating equipment ($t OO rebate), or a conversion of
electric straight resistance space heat to an air source heat pump ($900 rebate). Natural gas
customers are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a high efficiency furnace or boiler
($300). Both electric and natural gas customers are also eligible for the installation of a smart
thermostat. See Table 3-1 and Table 3-2for 2017 firstyear program participation, incentives
received, and savings achieved.
3.1.3 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program offers a $180 incentive for a high efficiency natural gas tankless water
heater, $200 incentive for heat pump water heaters, $7 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart
Savings showerheads and $35 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart Savings clothes washers
(reflected in point of purchase price). See Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 for 2017 first-year program
participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
18 lD 2017 DSM Annua! Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
a
I
3.1.4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
Avista customers with a certified ENERGY STAR Home or ENERGY STAR / ECORated
Manufactured Home are eligible for a $1,000 or $800 rebate, respectively. Eligible homes must
be all electric to qualify for these rebate levels. Alternatively, customers who subscribe to Avista
electric service for lighting and appliances and natural gas service for space and water heating
are eligible for a program rebate of $650 regardless of construction type. See Table 3-5 and
Table 3-6 for 2017 ftst-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.5 Fuel Efficiency
The Fuel Efficiency Program offers incentives for converting existing straight resistance electric
space heat to a natural gas furnace ($1,500 rebate); and/or converting their existing electric
water heater to a natural gas water heater ($ZSO rebate). Homes that implement both the
furnace and water heat conversions receive a $2,250 rebate. The program also offers an
incentive for the conversion of electric to natural wall heaters ($1,300 rebate). See Table 3-7 for
2017 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.6 Residential Lighting
Avista continues to participate in the regional manufacturer buy-down of energy efficient lighting,
through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), its contactors and self-directed
giveaways. The bulbs resulted in 3,452 MWh in annual first-year savings during 2017 (see
Table 3-6). The Company contributed over $'169,000 in incentives toward this buy-down effort
with the overall average incentive of $1.00 for a LED bulb and $0.40 for a CFL bulb.
3.1.7 Shell
The primary measures included in the Shell Program are wall, attic, floor insulation, duct
sealing, and window replacements. lncentives are offered per square foot and vary from
$0.15/sf for insulation measures to $3.54lsf for windows. See Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 for 2017
first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Avista launched a Home Energy Reports (HER) program in June 2013, targeting 25,201 ldaho
and high use electric customers. As of December, 2015, Avista had 17,598 customers still
participating in the HER program. ln January of 2016, Avista 'refilled' their existing Home
Energy Reports Program by 8,022 customers bringing total distribution to approximately 25,620
19 lO 20'17 DSM Annual Conservation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4-gtsta
electric customers in ldaho that received home energy reports throughout the duration of the
2016-2017 program years unless they opted-out or moved (Table 3-11). At the beginning of the
2017, approximately 23,364 treatment customers remained in the program. 2017 was the final
year of the issuance of Opower/Oracle home energy reports to the high electric usage
customers in Washington and ldaho. ln the future, Avista hopes to initiate a new behavior
program using the newly installed Advanced Metering lnfrastructure (AMl) system.
See Table 3-12for 2017 program participation, incentives received, and gross verified savings.
The majority of the two-year (2016 - 2017) Home Energy Report program savings are
recognized in the first year of the program.
20 aD 2017 DSM Annua! Conseruation Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vsta
Table 3-1 : 20'17 lD Electric HVAC Program SummaryT
E Smart Thermostal DIY with Eleclric
Heat
E Smart Thermostat Paid lnstall with
Eleclric Heat
E Variable Speed Motor
E Eleclric To Air Source Heat Pump
E Electric to Duclless Heal Pump
Total
7 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appliGble NTG ratios.
21 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report E Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$31 9
$1,362
$7,85s
$1 5,046
$10,112
$34,692
11 $800 6,499 $5,552 $0 $0 $6,098
41 $4,790 27,770 $23,721 $0 $0 $18,317
$31,291 151 ,891367 $1 36,846 $0 $o $367,222
67 $49,229 243,466 $262,1 33 $0 $0 $452,941
6'r $27,978 135,699 $ 176,169 $0 $0 $346,81 2
547 $114,088 s55,325 $604,420 s0 $o $'r,191,390
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Benefils
Customer
lncremenlal
Costs
Non-
lncentivelncentivesMeasurekwhThermsProject
Count Savings ' Savings Costs
frvtstn
G Natural Gas Boiler
G Natural Gas Furnace
G Smart Thermoslat DIY with
Natural Gas Heat
G Smart Thermostat Paid
lnstall with Natural Gas Heat
Total
Simple Steps Showerheads
Simple Steps Clothes Washers
E Heat Pump Waler Heater
Total
Table 3-2: 2017 lD Natural Gas HVAC Program Summary8
Table 3-3: 2017 lD Electric Water Heat Program Summarys
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$683
$42,148
$1,828
$4,896
$49,555
$1,768
$904
$84
$2,756
8 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appllcable NTG ratios.
22
$82,29513$3,886 1.777 $0 $19,212 $0
't,243 $372,488 170,431 $0 $1,185,273 $0 $807,950
$0 $28,719154$1 1 ,413 7,390 $0 $s1,393
309 $30,428 14,649 $0 $137,693 $0 $202,914
$0 i1,121,8781,719 $41 8,21 5 194,247 $o $1,393,571
Projecl
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentiveMeasureUtility Costslncentives kwh Therms
$4,904449$2,239 54,431 $30,800 $0 $0
$28,32e309$20,676 22,557 $15,744 $0 $0
2 $408 1,306 $1,466 $0 $0 $1,499
760 $23,32s 78,294 i48,011 $0 $0 $34,732
kwh Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Cosls
Non-incentiveProjectlncentivesUtility CostsCountkwh i Therms
!
Measure
frvtsta
Table 3-4: 2017 lD Natural Gas Water Heat Program Summarys
Simple Steps Showerheads
G Tankless Water Heater
Total
Table 3-5: 2017 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Electric Program Summary6
E Energy Star Home - Manufactured,
Furnace
E Energy Star Home - Manufaclured, Heat
Pump
E Energy Star Home - Stick Built, lD
Total
Table 3-5: 2017 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Natural Gas Program Summary6
G ENERGY STAR HOME - NATURAL GAS ONLY
Total
I All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
lO 201 7 OSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$8,921
$9,331
$1 0,1 78
$4s2
$1,142
$11,771
$149
t149
449 $3,057 2,727 $0 $1 1 ,518 $0 s4,904
$51,040255 23.205 $0 $250.886 $0 $388,025
704 $54,098 0 25,932 $0 $262,44 $0 $392,929
Pro,ecl
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremenlal Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives kwh Therms
19 $15,492 167,820 $177,323 $0 $3,1 33 957,000
1 $81 s 5,663 $7.874 $0 $0 $3,000
20 $6,022 20.298 1,620 $19,888 $12,445 $o $17,724
40 $22,329 193,781 1,620 $205,085 $12,45 $3,133 $77,724
Projecl
Count
kwh
SavingB
Therms
Savings
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Beneflts
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentiveMeasurelncentives
utili Costs
$1,295 863 $0 $4,186 -$347 $6,000
2 $1,295 863 $o $4,186 -$347 $6,000
Projeci
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
energy
Benefits
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incentiveMeasure
Non-
lncenlives ; kwh, Therms
util Costs
lErtsra
$41 0
23
Table 3-7: 2017 lD Electric Fuel Conversion Program Summary10
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace $34,988
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace & Water
Heat $47.493
E Electric To Nalural Gas Wall Heater $3,496
E Electric To Natural Gas Water Heater $8,380
Total s94,357
Table 3-8: 2017 lD Electric Residential Lighting Program SummaryT
Simple Steps LED $140,242
Simple Steps CFL $1,461
Total $141,703
l0All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€bie NTG ratios.
24 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
95 $ 161 ,549 469,539 (31,670)$609,571 -$243,300 $0 $429,774
126 $341.240 968,695 (68,264)$827,438 -$352,300 $0 $745,063
$s7,1 1 0't3 $17.225 71,303 (4,867)$60,906 -$25,1 1 I $0
84 $63,651 I 99,692 (14,104)$145,991 -$72,789 $0 $253,828
318 t583,666 1,709,229 (118,905)$r,&1:},906 -$693,506 $o sl,485,774
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lnGremental
Costs
Non-
incenlive
Utility
Costs
Measure lncentives kwh , ThermsProject
Count
3,395,498 $327,307159,896 $167,902 $2,443,334 $0 $0
4,298 $1,769 57,194 $25,456 $0 $0 $6,480
1 64,194 $1 69,671 3,452,692 $2,468,790 $o $o $333,787
Projecl
Count
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentiveMeasureUtility CostsIncentives kwh ; Therms
.*vtsra
E Attic lnsulation With Electric Heat
E Window Replc from Double Pane W Electric
Heat
E Window Replc from Single Pane W Eleclric
Heat
Total
G Attic lnsulalion with Natural Gas Heat
G Floor lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Wall lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Windo\ r Replc with Natural Gas Heat
Total
Table 3-9: 2017 lD Electric Shell Program Summarylr
Table 3-10: 20'17 lD Natural Gas Shell Program Summary8
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$104
$400
$2,914
$3,418
$149
$11
$20
$2,770
2,950
11All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect ot appli€ble NTG Etios.
25
$177 $7,8105$1,008 1,394 $1,810 $0
I $3.742 5,365 $6,96s $0 $58,044
83 $17,996 39,1 1 I $50,775 $0 $0 9435,495
96 $22,746 45,870 $s9,550 $o $177 $501,349
Pro.iect
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentiveMeasureUtility Costslncentives kwh Therms
$7,0667$1,398 513 $0 $4,1 96 $0
$230 63 $0 $307 $0 $9751
$362 80 $0 ss54 $o $1,5251
205 $52,125 11,201 $0 $77,897 $o $1,418,295
82,954 1,427,86121454,115 11,857
kwh
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentive
Ulility Costs
Project ThermsMeasureCountlncentiveskwh
.frvtsttt
I
I
II
I
Table 3-1'l: Opower/Oracle Participation Summary
ID
Table 3-12: 2017 lD Electric Residential Opower/Oracle Program Summary12
Reports $1 15,467
when there is a 2-year measure life.
26 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
23,364
State lnitial 2017 Participating
Customers
1 $0 -739,094 -$68,314 $o $0 $0
Project
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incentive
Utility Costs
Measure lncentives Benefits
Non-energykwhTherms
&vtsrrl
3.1.9 Residentia! Trend Analysis
During 2017 , the Company saw a decrease in savings from the previous year with the total
savings decreasing by 2,628,077 kwh from 9,071,745 kwh in 2016 to 6,045,191 kwh in 201713.
The largest contributor to the change in savings for residential programs is attributed to the Fuel
Efficiency program decreasing from4,945,013 in 2016 to 1,709,229in2017.
3.1.9.1 ResidentialLighting
The residential lighting program obtained 56% of the overall residential savings (3,452,692
kWh) in 2017 . The Company continues to see a strong desire for LED measures in its ldaho
service territory.
Please see Figure 3-1 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
Figure 3-1: ldaho Electric Lighting Trend Analysisla
lD Electric Lighting - Residential Program Totals
Savings 20t4-20I7 (kwh )
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Lighting
20L4
4,760,48O
2015
5,15 1,365
20L6
3,3L6,60L
2017
3,452,692
13 Amounts exclude the Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports. (5,306,098 kwh less -739,094 impact of Opower = 6,045,'191 kWh)
14 Savings numbers fot 2014 are unverified gross, 2015-2017 is verified gross.
27 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
While the overall savings from residential lighting saw a slight increase in 2017, the overall
number of units decreased from the prior year. This is due to CFL lamps no longer being
incentivized by our DSttI program. However, the number of LED units increased in number each
year since 2015 going from 36,298 in 2015, 96,211 in 2016, and 159,896 units in 2017 .
See figure 3-2for an illustration of the CFL and LED trends for 2014-2017.
Figure 3-2: ldaho Electric Savings and Unit Count - Residential Lightingls
ldaho Residential Lighting
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,s00,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
ICFLSavings
r LED Savings
-CFL
Units
-
LED Units
2074
3,636,394
r,rr9394
206,422
53,015
2015
4,779,278
923,288
789,226
36,298
2076
1,382,06s
1,934,536
109,935
96,2r7
2017
57,794
3,395,498
4,294
159,896
3.1.9.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program
The Fuel Efficiency Program obtained 1,709,229 kWh of savings in 2017 which is a decrease
from the 4,945,013 achieved in 2016. ln total, the Company served 1,866 customers in 2017
with the majority choosing to convert both their furnace and water heater (utilizing the "combo
1s Savings numbers tot 2014 are unverified gross, 2015-2017 is verified gross.
28 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
.#vtsra
measure"). ln the prior year, Avista served 811 customers with a similar share pursuing the
combo measure. Avista's fuel efficiency tariff was revised in2014 and increased incentives for
electric to natural gas conversions. The electric to natural gas furnace conversion incentive has
been revised overtheyears rangingfrom $900 in2014 and increasing to $2,300 in 2016.
During 2016, Avista revised the incentive to $1,500 and the program has maintained this
incentive level throughout 2017 . The below graph illustrates the trend in savings for the 2014-
2017 periods.
Figure 3-3: ldaho Electric Fuel Conversion Trend Analysisl6
!D Electric Fuel Conversion - Residential Program Totals
Savi n gs 2OL4-2OL7 ( kwh )
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 2014
533,503
n
2015
2,786,477
201.6
4,945,0L3
2017
L,709,229Fuel Conversion
3.1.9.3 ResidentialShell Programs
The residential shell program obtained residential savings of 45,870 kWh in 2017 which
represents 1o/o of the overall savings in 2017. The savings derived from the residential shell
program are primarily attributed to low u-factor window replacements. Of the 45,870 kWh in
losavings numbers for 2014 are unverified gross, 201 5-2O l 7 is verified gross
29 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
savings in 2017 , 44,476 kWh was attributed to window projects. The below graph illustrates the
changes to the shell program between 2014 and 2017.
Please see Figure 3-4 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program.
Figure 3-4: ldaho Electric ShellTrend AnalysislT
lD Electric Shell- Residential Program Totals
Savi ngs 2OL4-2OL7 ( kwh )
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
L50,000
100,000
50,000
0 I
201,4
446,778
2015
174,453
201,6
138,436
20L7
45,870Shell
3.1.9.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Energy efficiency savings derived from Avista's behavior program continue to contribute a large
percentage to the company's overall portfolio of savings. For the 2016-2017 program year, the
Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports captured savings of 6,785,292 kwh. While this savings
amount recorded in 2016 was 7,750,716 kwh originally, the program received a realization rate
of 97o/o, making the gross verified savings for 2016 7,524,386. Because the evaluation team
estimated the overall two year program to be 6,785,292 kwh in total, there was an adjustment
made to the 2017 savings of -739,094 kWh.
17 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 2015-2017 is verified gross.
30 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A'Yvtsta
Prior to the 2016-2017 program year, the Home Energy Reports were conducted over a two and
a half year span rather than its current two year span. The below graph illustrates the
comparison of the prior two and a half year program with the current two year program.
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Opower/Oracle Trend Analysisl8
lD Electric OPower - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL3-2OL7 ( kwh)
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
O-Power
2013-2015
5,685,205
2016-2017
6,785,292
3.2 Low lncome
The Company leverages the infrastructure of a single Community Action Partnership (CAP)
agency to deliver energy efflciency programs for the Company's low income residential
customers in the ldaho service territory. The program is designed to serve Avista residential
customers in ldaho whose income falls between 175 percent and 250 percent of the most
current federal poverty level.
A CAP agency has the resources to income qualify, prioritize and treat client's homes based
upon a number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annual funding, the agency has
other monetary resources they can leverage when treating a home with weatherization or other
18 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 2015-201 7 is verified gross.
^#vtsr,a
31 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
energy efficiency measures. CAP agencies either have in-house and/or contract crews to install
many of the efficiency measures of the program.
During the 2017 program year, the Low-lncome program captured energy savings of more than
380,000 kWh. Table 3-13 below provides a recap of the 2014,2015, 2016 and2017 program
year results for the Electric program.
Ta ble 3-1 3: 201 4-2O17 Electric Prog ram Overv iewls
Project Count 3,640
Energy Savings (kWh)430,3s6
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits $340,991
TRC Benefits $930,418
Program Costs
UCT Costs $839,024
TRC Costs $766,545
BenefiUCost Ratios
Utility Cost Test (UCT)0.41
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)1.21
The following table recaps the2014-2017 NaturalGas Program for Low-lncome. During 2017,
the company achieved 1,427 lherms of savings.
19 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 201 5 is verified gross, 2016 is adjusted reported gross, and 201 7 is verified
gross.
Participation and Savings
4,315 3,603 3,762
380,1 70 284,326 426,815
$32s,530 $288,035 $467,447
$460,1 26 $436,916 $773,781
$775,927$609,s80 $608,253
$556,840 $516,775 $775,927
0.53 0.47 0.60
0.83 0.85 1.00
2017 2016 2015 i 2014
32 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^*vtstl
Table 3-14:2014-2017 Natural Gas Program Overview
Participation and Savings
Project Count
Energy Savings (Therms)
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits
Program Costs
UCT Costs
TRC Costs
BenefiUCost Ratios
Utility Cost Test (UCT)
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
3.2.1 Program Changes
ln 2017 , the Company continued to reimburse Community Action Agencies for 100% of the cost
of installation for most energy efficiency measures defined on the "Approved List". The
Company also continued to offer a "Rebate List" of additional energy efficiency measures that
allows the agency to receive partial reimbursement for improvements that are not as cost-
effective as those on the Approved List but may still be necessary for the homes overall energy
efficiency and functionality. The reimbursement amount is only equal to the avoided cost
energy value of the improvement. This approach focuses the agency towards installing
measures that have the greatest cost-effectiveness, from the utility perspective, but still offers
an opportunity to fund other measures if needed. To allow for additional flexibility, the agency
may also choose to utilize their Health and Safety dollars to fully fund the cost of the measures
on the Rebate list.
3.2.2 2017 Program Details
Eligible efficiency improvements are similar to those offered under the traditional residential
rebate programs. An Avista approved measure list is provided to the agencies in an attempt to
218 202 NA NA
1,427 3,'1 '16 NA NA
$11,111 $25,476 NA NA
$102,602 $95,445 NA NA
$159,142 $208,636 NA NA
$140,661 $187,270 NA NA
0.07 0.12 NA NA
0.73 0.5'1 NA NA
33 lO 20'17 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2017 2016 2015 2014
TRC Benefits
^#rrtrsrll
manage the cost-effectiveness of the low income program from a utility perspective (see Table
3-15).
The agencies are given discretion to spend their allotted funds on either electric or natural gas
efficiency improvement based on the need of the clients The program includes improvements to
insulation, infiltration, ENERGY STAR@ doors and refrigerators along with fuel conversion from
electric resistance space and water heat to natural gas. Avista's funding covers the full cost of
the improvement from the Approved Measures list
Table 3-15:2017 Low lncome Program Approved Measure List
o Air infiltration
Duct sealing
lnsulation for attic, walls, floors,
and ducts
LED lighting
Air infiltration
Duct sealing
ENERGY STAR doors
ENERGY STAR windows
High efficiency furnace (90% AFUE)
High efficiency gas water heater
lnsulation for attic, walls, floors, and ducts
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Electric to natural gas furnace
Electric to natural gas water heat
Electric to ductless heat pump
Along with the Approved Measure List, Avista has also established a "Rebate List" of eligible
measures. The Rebate List allows the agencies to receive funding for other measures that are
not as cost-effective as those on the Approved List but are still necessary for the homes' overall
functionality. This measure list is outlined in Table 3-16.
a
a
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Fuel Conversion Measures
34 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vtsta
Electric Measures NaturalGas Measures
Table 3-16: 2017 Low lncome Program Rebate Measure List
. Heat pump water heaters
. ENERGY STAR refrigerators
. ENERGY STAR doors
. ENERGY STAR windows
. Electric to air source heat pump
lndividually, the annual contract for each agency allows them to spend their annually allotted
funds on either natural gas or electric efficiency measures at their discretion, and charge a 15
percent administration fee towards the cost of each measure. ln addition, up to 15 percent of
their annual funding allocation may be used towards Health and Safety improvements in support
of energy efficiency measures installed in the home. lt is at the agencies' discretion whether or
not to utilize their funds for health and safety and other home repairs to ensure the habitability of
the home where the energy efficiency improvements were installed. Refer to Table 3-17, Table
3-18, and Table 3-19 for low income program participation and savings details f or the 2017
program year.
^#rtsta
35 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 3-17: 20'17 lD Electric Low-lncome Measures Summary2o
CFL Bulbs
E Air lnfiltration
E Duct Sealing
E Energy Star Doors
E Energy Star Windows
E Health And Safety
E INS - Attic
E INS - Duct
E INS - Floor
E INS - Wall
62 $3,300 4,810
35 $40,005 10,577
'12
16
29
$1,s73 $0 $0 $2,860
$1 1,388 $0 $0 $34,661
$0 $4,776
$0 $11,552 $3,1 59
$58,231
$2s7
$1,860
$359
$409
$87
$44.742 $0
$s28
$25
$1,721
$23
24
15
1'l
1,663 $3,232 $0 $0 $8,083
$0 $3,356
$10,s35 $0 $0 $22,930
: $138 $0 $0 $141
18 $26,466 4,664
$163 I 61 i
Project
Count
kwh
Savings
Therm
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non- i
Energy iBenefits i
Customer
lncremental
Costs'
Non-lncentive
Utility CoslsMeasurelncentives
II$5,512 $2,1 96 $0
$3,646 1,108 ' : $2,503
$1,422 247 i
I
$s33 $0 $6,812 $1,232
$51,641 U $0 $0
$9,329
158 $1 54 $0$3,874
E To G Furnace Conversion 26 $179,547 162,012 (5,839) $210,330 -$44,857 $39,000 $155,562 $34,362
$15.298
$5,474
$491,969 $64,871
measure any zeto ncome pro9ram.
E To G H20 Conversion 38
E To Heat Pump Conversion 18
Total
.Cuslomer are
incremental values are used in cost-effectiveness calculations.
20 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
36 lO 201 7 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$1 50,1 85 -$26,689$93,640't23,492 (5,8s7)$19,000 $1 30,1 23
$69,619 31,359 I
I
$0$33,506 $0 $60,319
305 $544,709 342,165 (11,696) $397,077 -$71,546 $0
2,015
1
,*vtsrn
Table 3-18: 2017 lD Electric Low-lncome Customer Outreach Summary2r
lD 20'l 7 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$4,468lncome)
G Air lnfiltration
G Duct Sealing
G Energy Star Doors
G Energy Star Windo\,rrs
G HE Furnace
G HE WH 5OG
G Health And Safety
G INS - Attic
G INS - Duct
G INS - Floor
G INS - Wall
Total
$650
$428
$1 26
$260
$1,280
$60
$723
$376
}ZJO
$4,222
$0
$83
37
38,004 $20,0253,705 $o $27,347 $0 $0
Therm
Savings
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs*
kwh
Savings
Non-lncentiveMeasureCountUtility Costs
Project lncentives
$43,093 246 $0 $1,712 $0 $37,95245
162 $o $'l ,128 $0 $8,78819s9,979
16 92,471 31 $0 $332 $1 1,552 $2,',176
21 $1,2U OJ $0 $684 $4,933 $1,113
$23,38 1 485 $0 $3,370 $21,627 $20,s9231
32 $0 $1 57 $0 $979$1,112
$43,69422$49,613 0 $0 $0 $53,379
$13,939 176 s0 $1,902 $0 $12,276
04,332 154 $0 $988 $0 $3,81616
57 $0 $621 $0 $3,90414$4,433
3 $1,304 20 $0 $218 $0 $1,149
218 $154,920 1,427 $0 $11,111 $91,491 $136,/t:l9
Project
Count
kwh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives kwh Therms
.l\vtsra
Table 3-'19: 2017 lD Natural Gas Low-lncome Measures Summaryl7
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Non-
Energy
Benefits
'Customer incremental costs are the incremental measure cost absent any incentive. Therefore, the values should not be zero for the low income program. These
incremental values are used in cost-effecliveness calculations.
21 All kwh values reported in this table are grcss, excluding the effst of applicable NTG ratios.
38 lD 201 7 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
frvrsta
3.3 Nonresidential
The nonresidential energy efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive
and site-specific offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is
automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program. Prescriptive paths for the nonresidential market are preferred for
measures that are relatively small and uniform in their energy efficiency characteristics.
ln 2017, more than 1,500 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were incented.
Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 23,000 individual measures. Avista's
tariff rider funded more than $6.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in nonresidential and
small business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 36,500 MWh and over
7'1,000 therms in annual first-year energy savings. Table 3-20 through Table 3-25 provide detail
on the electric, natural gas, and dualfuel nonresidential programs.
3.3.1 Program Changes
Program changes made at the beginning of 2017 to the nonresidential programs include the
addition of new program offerings, discontinuation of programs, and changes to eligibility or
incentive levels. Avista communicates program changes once the Annual Conservation Plan is
finalized and those changes become effective at the beginning of the year. ln addition, some
program changes are made throughout the year as necessary but these are less typical.
For nonresidential programs, rebates were updated to reflect business planning analysis to
include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. Changes were effective
January 1,2017 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31,2017 for 2016
measures and amounts. This 90 day grace period allows for a smooth transition when rebate
programs change to allow enough time for customers in the pipeline to complete their projects
yet close out changes in a timely but balanced approach.
The remaining sub-sections outline each nonresidential program offered in 2017 and the verified
participation, incentives, and energy savings, among other program achievements.
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path
Prescriptive paths do not require pre-project contracting, as the site-specific program does, and
thus lend themselves to streamlined administrative and marketing efforts. lncentives are
established for these prescriptive programs by applying the incentive formula contained within
Schedules 90 and 190 to a prototypical installation. Actual costs and savings are tracked,
reported and available to the third-party impact evaluator. When applicable, the prescriptive
measures utilize RTF unit energy savings. See Table 3-20 and Table 3-21 for 2017 first-year
program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
39 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.3.3 Site Specific Path
Site specific is the most comprehensive offering of the nonresidential segment. Avista's Account
Executives work with nonresidential customers to provide assistance in identifying energy
efficiency opportunities. Customers receive technical assistance in determining potential energy
and cost savings as well as identifying and estimating incentives for participation. Site specific
incentives are capped at seventy percent of the incremental project cost for all projects with
simple paybacks of less than 15 years. All projects must have a measure life of 10 years or
more. Site specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process,
motors (non-prescriptive), shell and lighting, with the majority being HVAC, lighting and shell.
See Table 3-22 and Table 3-23 for 2017 ftsl-year program participation, incentives received,
and savings achieved.
40 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
I
3.3.4 Small Business Program
Direct-install measures include:
Faucet aerators
Showerheads
Pre-rinse spray valves
Screw-in LED's
Smart power strips
CoolerMisers
VendingMisers
I
I
41 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
The Small Business (SB) program is administered by SBW consulting and is a direct
installation/audit program providing customer energy-efficiency opportunities by: (1) directly
installing appropriate energy-saving measures at each target site, (2) conducting a brief on-site
audit to identify customer opportunities and interest in existing Avista programs, and (3)
providing materials and contact information so that customers are able to follow up with
additional energy efficiency measures under existing programs. This program is only available
to customers who receive electric and/or natural gas service under Rate Schedule 11 in ldaho
and Washington. Schedule 11 customers typically use less than 250,000 kwh per year. See
Table 3-24 and Table 3-25 for 2017 first-year program participation, incentives received, and
savings achieved.
Table 3-20: 2017 lD Electric Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary22
PSC Lighting Exterior
PSC Lighting lnlerior
Air Guardian
ESG PSC Case Lighting
ESG PSC Controls
ESG PSC Motors
PSC Food Service Equipment
PSC Green Motors Rewind
PSC lnsulation
PSC Motor Controls HVAC
Total
22 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the etfect of appli€ble NTG ratios
42 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$12,438
$144,591
$1,862
$1 ,1 82
$1,799
$294
$ 178
$202
$544
$163,378
226 $490,293 2,453,547 $1,022,839$1,128,250 $0 $0
1,01 1 $4,218,681 20,666,146 (27e)$1 3,1 1 5,968 -$1,184 $6,587 $5,368,144
1 $89,001 381,527 $1 68,945 $0 $0 $94,674
53 $42,055 270,959 $107,237 $0 $0 $67,383
13 $9,703 64,901 $18,084$26,1 14 $0 $o
41 $26,454 259,151 $1 63,202 $0 $0 $28,140
12 $s,s42 52,534 $26,706 $0 $o $81,801
11 $3,36s 36,743 $1 6,120 $0 $o $91,642
4 $2,545 20,409 $18,3'r 9 $0 $0 $4,924
3 $5,805 74,241 $49,336 s0 s0 $1 1,779
't,375 $4,893,443 24,280,159 l27sl $14,820,197 -$1,1 84 s6,587 $6,789,410
Proiect
Count
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
Non-EnergyMeasurelnentivesBenefits
kwh ThermsSavings Savings
frutsra
$288
kwh Avoided
Costs
PSC Food Service Equipment
PSC lnsulation
PSC Commercial HVAC
Total
43
Table 3-21: 2017 lD Natural Gas Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary23
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$12,746
$17,100
$1 3,235
S.1:},081
20 $21,322 14,301 $0 $65,347 $0 $124,989
6 $9,202 11,735 $0 $87,672 $0 $s5,440
23 $12,348 11,752 $0 $67,853 $0 s122,352
$42,872 37,78849 $0 $220,872 $o $302,781
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benelits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
lncenlivesMeasure Savings
kwh
.frutsta
Project
Count
Table3-22i 2017|D Electric Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summaryie
ESG SS Cases
SS lndustrial Process
SS Lighting Exterior
SS Lighting lnterior
SS Multifamily Fuel Conversion
SS Shell
ESG SS Controls
SS Compressed Air
SS Motors
Total
23 All kwh and them values reporled in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
44 lD 2017 DSItll Annual Report E Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$5,432
$22,262
$21,796
$88,453
$140
$so
$1,946
$77,703
$2,091
$219,873
5 $37,197 267.496 $492,709 $0 $0 s54,202
I $ 170,799 834.089 $2,019,453 $0 $o $31 5,749
30 $208,1 85 1,189,910 $1,977 ,126 $0 $0 $51 3,226
32 $61 6,746 3,823,699 $8,023,584 $0 $o $1,105,433
I $'167,804 275,061 (1 3,974)$12,669 -$s,841 $0 $423,708
1 $1,1 17 $4,561 $0 $0 $1,503
3 $49,671 266,024 $176,537 $0 $0 $75,482
2 $1 86,033 3,966,226 $7,048,534 $0 $0 $327,502
1 $12,613 78,231 $1 89,638 $0 $0 $'r 9,167
76 $1,450,165 10,705,816 (13,974'$19,944,910 -$5,84'l $0 $2,835,972
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
A\,oided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
Measure lncentives : kwh SavingsProject
Count
*vrsra
5,081
Table 3-23: 2017 lD Gas Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summary2a
SS Appliances
SS Shell
ESG SS Cases
ESG SS HVAC
Total
Table 3-24: 2017 lD Electric Nonresidential Small Business Summary2o
SB Appliances
SB Lighting
SB Water Heat
SB Audit
Total
24 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicable NTG ratios.
lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$451
$748
$1,871
$2,1 05
$5,174
$17,509
$1 09,644
$49,325
$0
$176,478
45
1 $761 398 $0 $2,310 $0 $3,798
$9242 513 $0 $3,835 $0 $3,675
J $4,368 1,651 $0 $9,s92 $0 $17,177
1 $3,369 1,858 $0 $10,790 $0 $6,658
7 $9,422 4,420 $0 $26,527 $o $31,308
kwh
Savings
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Customer
lncremenlal
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Ulility
Costs
ThermsMeasure EnergySavingslncenlives
Benefits
Non-Projecl
Count
$51,320917 280,553 $60,792 $0 $0 $o
'10,444 $1 96,970 853,971 $380,687 $0 $0 $0
3,619 $17,122 416,238 $171,256 $0 $0 $0
5,310 $ t 20,399 $0 $0 $0 $1 34,520
20,290 $385,81 I 1,550,762 $612,735 $o $0 $134,520
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Arcided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benelits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncenlive
Utility
Costs
Measure Count Savings
ThermsProjecllncentives : kwh Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
.*vtsrl
Table 3-25: 2017 lD Gas Nonresidential Small Business Measures Summary2s
SB Water Heat
Total
25 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
46 lD 2017 OSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$20,211
$20,211
3,619 $28,120 28,975 $0 $1 03,617 $0 $0
3,619 $28,120 28,975 $0 t103,6't7 $0 $o
Project
Count
kwh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Measule lncentives
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
frvtsra
3.3.5 Non-Residentia! Trend Analysis
During 2017, tolal non-residential savings significantly increased from the previous year with the
total savings increasing from 21,305,147 kWh in 2016 to 36,536,737 kWh in 2017 (a 15,231 ,590
kWh change). The largest contributors to the overall savings for 2017 was a result of the
company's prescriptive interior lighting program which obtained 20,666,146 kWh or 57o/o of
overall non-residential savings. ln Figure 3-5, the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior
programs have been identified by the yellow bars for 2014,2015,2016 and 2017.
Other Non-Residential Measures, which are identified by the orange bars, continued to increase
going from 2,203,859 kWh in 2015 to 7 ,278,505 kWh in 2017 . The individual programs and
measures included in this category'for 2017 include Small Business (1 ,550,762 kwh), Energy
Smart Grocer (1,128,531kWh) and Site Specific (5,158,688 kwh). |n2016, the largest
contributors to this category included Prescriptive Energy Smart Case Lighting (918,377 kwh),
Site Specific lndustrial Process (707,012 kWh) and Prescriptive Motor Controls HVAC (464,088
kwh). ln 2015, the largest contributors to this category included Prescriptive Energy Smart
Case Lighting (719,497 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart lndustrial Process (390,989 kWh) and
Site Specific Multifamily measures (272,581 kwh) For 2014, the largest contributors were Site
Specific HVAC Combined (636,815 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart - Case Lighting (518,839
kWh) and Site Specific lndustrial Process (437,212 kwh).
All other lighting measures, identified by the grey, blue, and green bars in Figure 3-5 remained
relatively level as compared to the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior program.
Figure 3-5 below summarizes these savings for the 2014-2017 annual periods.
47 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Non-Residential Trend Analysis2s
lD Electric Non-Residential Program Summary
Savings 2O!4-20t7 (kwh)
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
36,536,737
2r,305,147
,265 5,350,823
f----==-I I:*--
201,4 2015 2016
I Other NR Measures IrI PSC Lighting - Exterior f PSC Lighting - lnterior
ISSLighting- Exterior ISSLighting-lnterior *All NRMeasures
2077
6 Savings numbers fot 2O14 arc unverified gross, 2015-20'17 are verified gross.
48 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
,*vtsta
tr
3.4 Gustomer Outreach
Energy efficiency outreach strategies incorporate both broad-reach and targeted communication
as well as attendance at local community events. Energy Efficiency is also featured throughout
the year in Avista's "Connections" monthly newsletter, which is distributed with the bill and
posted online.
3.4.1 Residential Customer Outreach
Avista's residential outreach included the popular, "Efficiency Matters" promotion (April-
June). During the seven-week contest, TV viewers could watch any KREIVI newscast for Avista's
energy-efficiency word of the day and enter it on krem.com for a chance to win a new RAV4
Hybrid. Television commercials featured energy-efficiency tips and Avista rebates. The fina16
event was also covered by KREM and included eight minutes of live news coverage.
For the summer of 2017, Avista ran the "Way to Save" broad-reach advertising campaign to
increase awareness ofldrive participation in our energy-efficiency programs for residential
customers. The campaign was updated from the year prior with new voice-over for the thirty-
second TV commercials, and 12 fifteen-second TV spots were created to reinforce messaging
(six spots promoted our rebates and six commercials highlighted energy-saving tips). Print and
online advertising, as well as social media, were also utilized throughout the campaign to extend
reach.
Avista also leveraged local sponsorships for "Energy Efficiency Night" at a Spokane Chiefs
hockey game.
Although available to all customers, Avista conducts targeted outreach for low income and
seniors. This outreach included several Energy Fairs, one of which was part of a broader event,
the Avista LIRAP Appointment Day which promoted efficiency and assistance like other energy
fairs but partnered with the local CAP agency, SNAP, to offer actual energy assistance
appointments. Communications tactics used to increase awareness of the Energy Fairs
included a direct mail, posters, emails, news releases, and prinU radio/ online advertising. ln-
person outreach efforts also included mobile outreach such as numerous partnerships with local
food banks as well as other venues and workshops at senior centers. Additional details around
these efforts can be found in the low-income section of the report.
3.4.2 Low-lncome Customer Outreach
ln partnership with the Company's DSM efforts, Avista's Consumer Affairs department conducts
conservation education and outreach for our low income, senior and vulnerable customers. The
company reaches the target population through workshops, energy fairs, mobile and general
outreach. Each of these methods include demonstrations and distribution of low-cost and no-
cost materials with a focus on energy efficiency, conservation tips and measures, and
information regarding energy assistance that may be available through agencies. Low income
and senior outreach goals increase awareness of energy assistance programs such as the
49 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Avista Low lncome Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP), the Low lncome Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share.
The company has recognized the following educational strategies as efficient and effective
activities for delivering the energy efficiency and conservation education and outreach:
, Energy Conservation workshops for groups of Avista customers where the primary
target audiences are seniors and low income participants.
. Energy Fairs where attendees can receive information about low cosUno cost methods
to weatherize their home; this information is provided in demonstrations and limited
samples. ln addition, fair attendees can learn about billing assistance and
demonstrations of the online account and energy management tools. Community
partners that provide services to low income populations and support to increase
personal self-sufficiency are invited, at no cost, to host a booth to provide information
about their services and how to access them.
. Mobile Outreach is conducted through the Avista Energy Resource Van (ERV) where
visitors can learn about effective tips to manage their energy use, bill payment options
and community assistance resources.
General Outreach is accomplished by providing energy management information and resources
at events (such as resource fairs) and through partnerships that reach our target populations.
General Outreach also includes bill payment options and assistance resources in senior and low
income publications.
ln 2017 , Avista participated in 174 events including workshops, energy fairs, mobile outreach
events, and general outreach partnerships and events reaching approximately 14,518
customers in Washington and ldaho. Table 3-26 is an overview of different activities by type in
tD.
Table 3-26:20'17lD Low lncome Outreach Event and Bulb Giveaway Summary
Energy
Fairs 448
1,269
Mobile 2,257
Workshops 457
Total 4,431
3.4.3 Nonresidential Customer Outreach
To complement our residential outreach, two advertorials were placed to increase awareness of
Avista's energy efficiency programs for Commercial and lndustrial customers. The first
advertorial featured Wear-Tek, a metal casting production foundry and machine facility, and was
placed in 11 publications in February and March. The customer highlighted in the second
2 224
16 960
32 1,941
12 305
62 3,430
Description Contacts LEDsNumber of
Events/Activities
50 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Outreach
advertorialwas Cenex/ ZipTrip, and ran in 12 publications in July and August. Both
advertorials are also posted on myavista.com.
We also continued our effort of building awareness of energy efficiency and programs through
our electronic newsletter to commercial customers.
As opportunities arise, energy efficiency tips are provided to local media outlets. Typical topics
include winter weather and summer heat energy efficiency tips. Avista provides updates to area
vendors about program information through mailings and webinars who in turn pass that
information on to their customers. The general awareness efforts successfully position Avista to
actively pursue and react to these earned media opportunities.
One earned media highlight was Avista being included in the cover story for the
AugusUSeptember issue of American Gas Magazine. The article focused on energy efficiency
programs for small and midsize businesses and featured three national utilities-Avista, Con
Edison, and PSE&G.
51 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V)
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
for the 2016-2017 biennium period. The energy efficiency savings and associated cost
effectiveness results presented in this 2017 Annual Report are based on the evaluation findings
and are presented as gross, verified savings.
The impact and process evaluation reports can be found in the Appendix.
52 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency
5.1 Generation and Distribution
Avista did not complete any efficiency projects at its generation facilities in 2017
During 2017, Avista's Grid Modernization Programs completed an upgrade of two Washington
feeders with annual savings of 375 MWh and one ldaho feeder with annual savings of 112
MWh.
The Grid Modernization Program was created to provide a thorough examination of Avista's
electric distribution circuits for programmatically addressing the upgrading and modernization of
the facilities. The Program focuses on selecting and improving the worst performing feeders
that have been assessed to provide the most opportunity for improvement in the areas of
reliability and energy efficiency. This includes the identification, prioritization, selection, and
engineering analysis of the distribution circuits. Grid Modernization performs a comprehensive
inventory of each of the electric feeders on the system in order to appropriately prioritize and
select the candidate feeders for the Program. The feeder criteria information is then used to
rank the potential benefits for each circuit compared with all of the other distribution feeders
Avista's system.
Grid Modernization was initially optimized at a cycle interval of 60 years, meaning that over that
period of time the program would rebuild every feeder in the distribution system. Selection of
this interval related to the average life span of our distribution infrastructure as well as the 20
year interval cycle time for the Wood Pole Management (WPM) program. These two programs
are integrated in several important ways. Grid Modernization relies on the inspection data from
Wood Pole Management (WPM) for its asset condition assessment, and targets the timing of
feeder rebuilds to optimize the value of wood pole inspections and follow-up already
performed. Wood Pole Management WPM) relies on the poles inspected for the Grid
Modernization program as contributing to the total number of poles that WPM has to inspect
annually to remain on the 20 year inspection cycle. Further, the Grid tt/odernization program
also integrates activities of other operational programs beyond Wood Pole Management (WPM),
including the PCB transformer change-out program, vegetation management, various budgeted
maintenance programs, and the segment reconductor and feeder tie program.
The Grid Modernization Program aims to accomplish a comprehensive modernization approach
from both an energy efficiency and reliability perspective. The following is a list of the programs'
53 lD 2017 DSM Annua! Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vtsr,a
targeted criteria: Reliability lndex Analysis, Peak Loading Study, Load Balancing, High Loss
Conductors, Feeder Reconfiguration or Relocation, Primary Trunk and Lateral Conductor
Analysis, Feeder Tie Location and Opportunities, Voltage Quality Study, Voltage Regulator
Settings, Fuse Coordination and Sizing Analysis, Distribution Line Loss Assessment,
Transformer Core Losses, Power Factor Analysis, Power Factor Correction, Distribution
Automation Deployment, Open Wire Secondary Analysis, Existing Pole Analysis, Underground
Facilities, and Vegetation Management.
With approximately 350 feeders in Avista's system and a targeted 60 year life cycle, Grid
lVlodernization should be completing almost 6 feeders each year when staffed and funded
appropriately. Grid Modernization has 17 feeders that have been worked on so far (in varying
forms of design, construction, or completion) - Grid Modernization has fully completed 6 of
approximate 350 feeders. Please see the below table that identifies the program results and
plans which extends through 2020.
Table 6-1 shows the Grid Modernization Plan by Feeder
Table 5-'l: Grid Modernization Plan by Feeder
' Compl€ted under the DREE ProSram. Amual tvlwh Emrgy SavirEs may have ben Etheted ard pmlded by otheE, howss they did rDt iollcii, the em analysis
prms and dmumntation that ws started by Grid Modemization in late 2013, and may not be ableto be rtrrBted
"CompletedudslheFedsUpgradeProgEm. AmualMWhErertySavir8smayhavebenEtaTstedsndprcviredbyother,howsstheydidmtbllfrtheere
analysb prmes ard d@mstation that ffis started q GrU Modemization in late2013, and may not be aueto be rcrted
"' Mdtbnal Mwh evhgs gtimeted tkough oistributbn Artomatbn impHmsts are mt incbded h thse figue
"" Additimal MWh evirgs estiruted throqh the rmoElof OFn Wae SEondary dsricts are not ircluded in thesefigurs
54 lO 2017 DSM Annua! Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Feeds State Constnrtbn Start
Date
lconstruaionl**End Ba*lne Repoft
D.te
BasellE Report
vsgion
Estinated Annual
Pr[ R€mductor
Mlt t Savings
Estimated AnnE I
Transfolmg Lm
MWh SaYinIs
fotal Estimated
AnmlMWh
1CE-13F-4- _ - _ - _ _r_V4_
BEA 12F1 WA
F&C72F2 WA
BEA12F5 WA
cDA 121 rD
wlL 12F2 WA
orii'!;6i""" """""'- inii"
M23 621 rD
RAT231 IDWAK12F2 WA
M IL 12F2 WA
sPr 12F1 WA
RAT233 ID
sPR 761 WA
oRo1280 rD
IUR 112 WA
PDL 1201 WA
Mts431 tD
F&C 12F1 WA
HOL 1205 rD
BEA12F2 WA
M15 514 rDSlPl:lf4 lrtlA
2_999____
20t2
2012
2013
2013
2015
2072
N12
2013
mt2
2013
2015
2074
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
2077
20t7
2077
20L7
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
IBA
2015
2015
2015
2015
2017
2019
2019
2019
70t7
2018
20t7
2023
2019
2018
2020
lBA
lBA
317712075
3/3lNt5
3ho/zots
4/Ll2OL5
3h7 l20LS
eh7/zo,5
tolrg/2075
5l6lz016
5127 /20L6
8/n/20c6
Lt/t6/2oL6
3/30/2077
10/13/2OL7
4130l2078
lBA
_-__ 4nnl{a]..]lr!lvhFlgqy_sav_ilgl!r€!e_note_stimatdordogy'$J']4-a!!lr_E_t]!!_e:_ __--
Amual MWh Emrgy SavirBs wtre not 6timated tr docmsted at thlstime"
Amual Mwh EErgy savir€s wse nct Etiruted or docmsted at tHstime"
Amual Mwh EErgy Savir€: wse nct gtimated q docmmted at this time"
Amual MWh EErgy Savings wae not stlmated or docmsted at thistime"
Amual MWh wse not stimated or docmmted at this time*'
MWh wse not stimated or dsumerted at thistime
Version 4
Version 3
Versioo 7
Version 4
Versbn 2
Version 5
Verspn 3
Version 1
VeEion 2
Vergk n 2
Versbn 1
Version 1
Versbn I
Version I
Version I
Verrion 1
4t2.6
0.0
4.3
21.0
31.5
90.3
49.9
3.5
140.1
23.5
128.8
1.8
0
8.8
0
0
163.2
148.7
135.3
164.8
832
381..4
55J
108.2
92:1
165.5
128.3
258.5
655
260.5
245.6
272.8
575.8
lit8.7
175.6
185.8
u4.8
17t.7
10s.6
111.7
232.8
189.0
257.7
260.3
65.5
269.3
245.6
ol,
A,V'stsra
Also in 2017, Avista's LED Streetlight Change-Out Program successfully converted 9,439 High-
Pressure Sodium (HPS) streetlights to Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, resulting in an
energy savings of 101 MWh in Washington and 38 ttlWh in ldaho.
Avista manages streetlights for many local and state government entities to provide street,
sidewalk, and/or highway illumination for their streets by installing overhead streetlights. The
primary driver for converting overhead streetlights from HPS lights to LED lights is the
significant improvement in energy savings, lighting quality to customers, and resource cost
savings. ln all, the five year program will change out over 28,000 streetlights by end of 2019
Table 6-2 shows the Distribution Efficiency Savings by Program
Table 6-2: Distribution Efficiency Savings by Program
Grid Modernization 487
LED Streetlight Change-Out 139
Total 626
375 112
1 0 I 38
476 150
WA MWh
Savings
ID MWh
Savings
TotalMWh
SavingsProgram
55 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vtstl
6 Regional Market Transformation
Avista's local energy efficiency portfolio consists of programs and supporting infrastructure
designed to enhance and accelerate the saturation of energy efficiency measures through a
combination of financial incentives, technical assistance, program outreach and education. lt is
not feasible for Avista to independently have a meaningful impact upon regional or national
markets.
Consequently, utilities within the northwest have cooperatively worked together through the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to address those opportunities that are beyond the
ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and funding NEEA since
the 1997 founding of the organization.
Table 7-1 show the NEEA savings and the associated costs.
Table 7-1: NEEA Savings and Associated Costs for Avista
Electric 5.7680/o
(wA/rD)
NaturalGas 15.63%
(wA/rD)
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
All figures provided represent the amounts that are allocated to Avista service territory, which is a
combination of site-based energy savings data (where available) or an allocation of savings based
on funding share. When the funding share allocation approach is applied, the funding share for
Avista is split 70o/ol30o/o between Avista Washington and Avista ldaho. The total current funding
share is noted in the table above. Funding share for Avista varies by funding cycle and within cycle
if funding composition changes.
5,291 MWh $574,037
nla $1 13,814
NEEA Energy
Savings 2017
(FinalReported
as of March 2018
2017 Costs
(Avista Financials)
Avista Current
Funding Share
(wA & rD
Combined)
Fuel Type
4vtsta
56 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
6,2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
The Natural Gas 2015-2019 business plan does not forecast energy savings in the short-term of
this cycle (2015-2019). The business plan is focused on developing the portfolio of initiatives
that will deliver savings in future years (anticipating 2019+).
6.3 2017 Costs
NEEA annual costs do not map directly to the annual energy savings for a given year. Due to
the Market Transformation nature of NEEA's work, the energy savings investments are heavy
up front, and the return (in the form of energy savings) lags by a few years or more.
Approximately 68% of the regional energy savings value delivered in 2017 are from initiatives
for which the investment period was 2010-2014. The current investment period has a
forecasted energy stream that extends beyond 2019.
NEEA costs include all costs of NEEA operations and value delivery, including:
. Energy savings initiatives
. lnvestments in market training and infrastructure
. Stock assessments, evaluations, data collection, and other regional and program
research
. Emerging technology research and development, and
. All administrative costs
Avista's criteria for funding NEEA's electric market transformation portfolio calls for the portfolio
to deliver incrementally cost-effective resources beyond what could be acquired through the
Company's local portfolio alone. Avista has historically communicated with NEEA the
importance of NEEA delivering cost-effective resources to our service territory. The Company
believes that NEEA will continue to offer cost-effective electric market transformation in the
foreseeable future. Avista will continue to play an active role in the organizational oversight of
NEEA. This will be critical to insure that geographic equity, cost-effectiveness and resource
acquisition continue to be primary areas of focus.
AEvtsra
57 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
During 2017, Avista incurred over $12.1 million in costs for the operation of electric and natural
gas energy efficiency programs in ldaho, with $11.0 million for electric energy efficiency and
$1 .'1 million for natural gas energy efficiency. Of this amount, $687,851 was contributed to the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance to fund regional market transformation ventures.
Seventy four percent of expenditures were returned to ratepayers in the form of incentives or
products (e.9. CFLs). During the 2016 calendar year, $120 thousand, or 1 .0 percent, was spent
on evaluation in an effort to continually improve program design, delivery and cost-
effectiveness.
Evaluation, as well as other implementation expenditures, can be directly charged to the
appropriate state and/or segment(s). ln cases where the work benefits multiple states or
segments, these expenditures are charged to a "general" category and are allocated based on
avoided costs for cost- effectiveness purposes.
The expenditures illustrated in the following tables represent actual payments incurred in the
2017 calendar year and often differ from the cost-effectiveness section where all benefits and
costs associated with projects completing in 2017 are evaluated in order to provide matching of
benefits and expenditures resulting in a more accurate look at cost-effectiveness.
Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 below, provide a summary of energy efficiency expenditures by fuel
type.
58 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 7-1: Avista Electricity Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD)27
Residential $1,339,988
Low lncome $609,580
Nonresidential $7,289,149
Regional $603,707
General $832,825
Research $300,233
Total $10,975,480
Table 7-2: Avista NaturalGas Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD)
Residential $569,062
Low lncome $161 ,997
Nonresidential $148,880
Regional $114,708
General $140,824
Total $1,135,471
27 ldaho Case AVU-E-06 Order 33769 required a reallocation of expenses from ldaho to Washington from previous years vvtich is
reflected in the above table. Calculations for cost effectiveness tests for the current year should exclude the reallocation from
previous years and include an increase to ldaho electric residential incentives and a decrease to Washingion electric residential
incentives in the amount of $102,235. Also for any calculations there should be an increase to ldaho electrical residential
implementation in the amount of $45,377 and a decrease to Washington electrical residential implementation in the amount of
$44,856 (the difference of $521 was charged to another account). ln addition for any calculations there should be an increase to
ldaho electrical general EMV and a decrease to Washington electrical general EMV in the amount of $130, 185.
$935,823 $404,165 $o $o
$544,709 $64,871 $0 $0
$6,729,420 $559,729 $0 $0
$o $480 $29,189 $574,037
$0 $820,388 $12,437 $0
$300,233$0 $0 $0
$8,209,952 $2,149,866 $41,626 $574,037
NEEA TotalSegmentlncentives:lmplementationr EM&V
$541,765 $27,297 $0 $0
$157,692 305$4,$0 $o
$80,414 $68,466 $0 $0
$0 $894 $o $1 13,814
$0 $62,266 $78,558 $0
$163,227$779,871 $78,558 $113,814
NEEA TotalSegment lncentives lmplementation : EM&V
59 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
8 Tariff Rider Balances
As of the start of 2017,hhe ldaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were
underfunded by $0.0 M. During 2017 , $8.7 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund
energy efficiency while $12.1 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The
$3.37 million under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $9.4 million
underfunded balance.
Table 8-1 illustrates the 2017 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
Table 8-1 Tariff Rider Activity 120171
Beginning Balance
(Underfunded)($76,e13)
Energy Efficiency Funding $1,393,272
Net Funding of Operations $1,316,360
Energy Efficiency Expenditures $1,135,471
g $180,889(Underfunded)
($5,946,150)
$7,347,001
$1,400,850
$10,975,480
($9,574,630)
NaturalGasElectric
60 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
fr-ttsta
9 Actual to Annual Conservation Plan
Comparison
For 2017 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy efficiency expenditures by $4.1
million, or 160 percent, and naturalgas expenditures were more than budgeted by $54,'166, or
105 percent. The biggest driver of expenditures is incentives. This demand for incentives was
slightly higher than anticipated and its impact resulted in the underfunding in the ldaho electric
and natural gas programs. lt is difficult to predict customer acceptance of programs, which
affects the incentive expenditures.
While the Annual Conservation Plan provides an expectation for operational planning, Avista is
required to incent all energy efficiency that qualifies under Schedules 90 and 190. Since
customer incentives are the largest component of expenditures, customer demand can easily
impact the funding level of the Tariff Riders.
Table 9-1 provides detail on the budget to actual comparison of energy efficiency expenditures
by fueltype.
Table 9-1 AnnualConservation Plan to Actual Comparison26
An nua! Gonservation Plan
lncentives Budget $598,429
Non-incentives and Labor $482,876
Total Budgeted Expenditures $1,081,305
Actual 2017 Expenditures
lncentives $779,871
Non-incentives and Labor $355,599
Total Actual Expenditures $1,135,471
Variance ($54,166)
28 Budget values are trcm 2077 Annual Conservation Plan
Electric NaturalGas
$3,713,774
$3,160,095
$6,873,869
$8,209,952
$2,765,529
$10,975,480
($4,101,611)
^*-ttsta
61 10 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results
This section reports the cost-effectiveness results with net to gross values, including
freeridership and spillover, as determined in the impact evaluation activities.
62 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
frvtsta
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-1:2017 ID Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UCT Costs
UGT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
Table 10-2: 2017 lD Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Non-Energy Benefits
TRC Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
TRC Costs
TRC Ratio
Residual TRC Benefits
$26,309,939
-$581,007
$25,728,932
$1,028,765
$8,209 9s2
$9,238,716
2.78
$16,490,215
$26,309,939
-$581,007
$144,492
$25,873,424
$1,028,765
$13,876,629
$14,905,393
1.74
$10,968,030
$25,912,862 $397,077
-$509,461 -$71,546
$25,403,401 $325,530
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$8,629,1 37 $609,580
2.94 0.s3
$16,774,265 -$284,049
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$2s,912,862 $397,077
-$s09,461 -$7I,546
$9,896 $134,596
$25,413,298 $460,1 26
$963,894 $64,871
$13,384,660 $491,969
$ 14,348,554 $556,840
1.77 0.83
$11,064,744 -$96,714
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
63 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
*vtsr,a,
Table 10-1:2017 ID Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Electric Bill Reduction $51 ,615,518
Gas Bill Reduction -$52,444
Non-Energy Benefits $144,492
Participant Benefits $51,707,566
Customer Costs $13,876,629
lncentive Received -$8,209,952
Participant Costs $5,666,677
Participant Ratio 9.12
Net Participant Benefits $46,040,889
Table 10-2: 2017 lD Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $26,309,939
Non-Participant Benefits $26,309,939
Electric Revenue Loss $51 ,615,518
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,028,765
Customer lncentives $8,209,952
Non-Participant Costs $60,8s4,235
RIM Ratio 0.43
Net RIM Benefits -$34,544,296
$51 ,'l 1 2,158 $503,361
-$48,418 -$4,027
$9,896 $134,596
$s1,073,637 $633,929
$13,384,660 $491,969
-$7,665,243 -$544,709
$5,719,417 -$52,740
8.93 N/A
$45,354,220 $686,669
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
$2s,912,862 $397,077
$25,912,862 $397,077
$51,1 1 2,1 58 $503,361
$963,894 $64,871
$7,665,243 $544,709
$59,741,294 $1,112,940
0.43 0.36
-$33,828,433 -$71s,864
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
64 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
^#vrsta
10.zNatural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-5: 2017 lD Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UcT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UGT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
Table 10-6: 2017 lO Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
$'1,031,047
$o
$1,031,047
$134,673
$763,057
$897,729
1.15
$133,318
$1,031,047
$o
$9 1, 144
$1,122,191
$134,673
$3,419,197
$3,553,869
0.32
-$2,431,678
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
Non-Energy Benefits
TRC Benefits
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
TRG Costs
TRC Ratio
Residual TRC Benefits
$11,11 1
$0 $0
$1,019,936 $11,111
$130,451 $4,222
$608,137 $154,920
$738,587 $1 59,1 42
1.38 0.07
$281,349 -$148,031
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$1,019,936 $11,111
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$1,019,589 $102,602
$130,451 $4,222
$3,282,758 $136,439
$3,413,208 $140,661
0.30 0.73
-$2,393,620 -$38,059
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
^*ursta
65 10 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$1,019,936
Table 10-3: 2017 lD Natural Gas Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Table 10-4: 2017 lD Natural Gas Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings
$4,227,226
$0
$91,144
$4,318,369
$3,419,197
-$763,0s7
$2,656,140
1.63
$1,662,230
$1,031,047
$1,031,047
$4,227,226
$134,673
$763,057
$5,124,955
0.20
-$4,093,908
$4,204,157 $23,069
$0 $0
-$347 $91,491
$4,203,810 $114,560
$3,282,758 $136,439
-$608, I 37 -$154,920
$2,674,621 -$18,481
1.57 N/A
$1 ,529,188 $133,041
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$1 ,019,936 $1 1,11 1
$1 ,019,936 $1 1,11 1
$4,204,157 $23,069
$130,451 $4,222
$608,1 37 $154,920
$4,942,744 $182,211
0.21 0.06
-$3,922,808 -$171,100
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
A vtsr.a
66 lO 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10.3Combined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-9: 2017 lD Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs
Natural Gas Avoided Costs
UCT Benefits
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
lncentive Costs
UCT Costs
UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
$26,309,939
$450,040
$26,759,979
$1,163,437
$8,973,008
$10,136,446
2.64
$16,623,533
Table 10-10:.2017 lD Combined Fuel Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $26,309,939
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $4s0,040
Non-Energy Benefits $235,636
TRC Benefits $26,995,615
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,163,437
Customer Costs $17,295,825
TRC Costs $18,459,263
TRC Ratio 1.46
Residual TRC Benefits $8,s36,352
$25,912,862 $397,077
$s10,476 -$60,435
$26,423,337 $336,641
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$9,367,724 $768,722
2.82 0.44
$17,055,614 -$432,081
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$25,912,862 $397,077
$510,476 -$60,43s
$9,549 $226,087
$26,432,887 $562,728
$1,094,344 $69,093
$16,667,418 $628,408
$17 ,761,762 $697,501
1.49 0.81
$8,671,12s -$134,772
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AFtrsra
67 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 10-5: 2017 lD Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Electric Bill Reduction
Gas Bill Reduction
Non-Energy Benefits
Participant Benefits
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
Participant Costs
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
Table 10-6: 2017 lD Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings
$s1,615,518
-$s2,444
$235,636
$56,025,93s
$17,295,825
-$8,973,008
$8,322,817
6.73
$47,703,1 1 9
$27,340,986
$27,340,986
$s5,842,744
$1 ,163,437
$8,973,008
$65,979,190
0.41
-$38,638,204
$51,112,158 $503,361
-$48,418 -$4,027
$9,549 $226,087
$ss,277,446 $748,489
$16,667,418 $628,408
-$8,273,379 -$699,629
$8,394,038 -$71,221
6.59 N/A
$46,883,408 $819,710
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$26,932,798 $408,1 88
$26,932,798 $408,1 88
$55,316,315 $526,429
$1,094,344 $69,093
$8,273,379 $699,629
$64,684,039 $1 ,295,1 51
0.42 0.32
-$37,751,241 -$886,963
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Ttt^*-tts
68 lD 2017 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Exhibit No. 3:
Avista 2016 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
Exhibit No. 3: Avista 2016 ldaho Annual Conservation Report
ldaho 201 6 DSIVI Annual
Conservation Report & Cost-
Effectiveness Ana Iysis
December 1, 2017
AEvrcra
Table of Gontents
1 Executive Summary ...............1
1.1 Gost-Effectiveness
2
3
2
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances. ......................3
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation............ ........4
1.4 2016 Program Highlights, Challenges and Changes.......................5
1.5 2016 Portfolio Trends.............. ........7
Cost-Effectiveness.......... .......9
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results.... ..........11
2.3 Natural Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
2.4 Combined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results.............
Programs
3.1 Residential
3.1.1 Program Changes.. ......17
3.1 .1 .1 Residential Program Discontinuations ................. 18
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustmenfs.............. .......... 18
13
15
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
21
28
28
3.1.1.3 Residential program additions
3.1.2 HVAC Program
3 Water Heat Program........
4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
5 Fuel Efficiency ..........
6 Residential Lighting
7 Shell
8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports......
I Customer Outreach
3.1.9.1 Residential Customer Outreach ......
3.1.9.2 Nonresidential Customer Outreach.
10 Residential Trend Analysis
3. 1 .1 0. 1 Residential Lighting..
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Aivtsra
3. 1.1 0.3 Residential Shell Programs........
3. 1.1 0.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Repofts...........
3.1 .10.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program 29
30
31
32
3.2.1 Program Changes.. ......34
3.2.2 2016 Program Detai1s.............. .....34
3.3 Nonresidentia! ........ ......41
3.3.1 Program Changes..
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings....
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations
............41
............41
............42
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments...............
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path......
3.3.3 Site Specific Path.
3.3.4 Small Business Program..
3.3.5 Prescriptive Lighting Adjustment to Reported Savings
3.3.6 Non-Residential Trend Analysis...
1 4 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V)......
4.1 Process Evaluation Summary
4.1.1 Cross-cutting...
4.1.2 Nonresidential, lncluding Small Business
4.1.3 Residential....... .. .. ..
4.2 lmpact Evaluation Summary
4.2.1 Nonresidential Programs .............
4.2.1.7 Slfe Specific Program
4.2.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting Program.....
4.2.1.3 Natural Gas Prescriptive Programs
4.2.1.4 EnergySmart Grocer Program
4.2.1.5 Electric Prescriptive Non-Lighting Other Programs
4.2.1.6 Small Busrness Program...
4.2.2 Residential Programs
4.2.2.1 Appliance Recyc\inq...............
4.2.2.2 HVAC Program
4.2.2.3 Water Heat.......
4.2.2.4 ENERGY SIAR@ Homes
4.2.2. 5 Fuel Efficiency..................
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
42
48
48
48
49
54
56
56
56
58
60
,62
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
65
66
67
68
69
il
^AFttsta
5
4.2.2.6 Residential Lighting
4.2.2.7 Shell Program
4.2.2.8 Opower Program...
4.2.2.9 Low lncome Program
Generation and Distribution Efficiency.....
Generation
Distribution
Regional Market Transformation
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
6.2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share......
6.3 2016 Costs
Energy Efficiency Expenditures
Tariff Rider Balances
Actual to Business Plan Comparison
10 Net Cost Effectiveness Results
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results.............
10.2 Natural Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
10.3 Combined Fuel Cost Effectiveness Results....
70
70
71
71
73
73
73
74
74
74
75
76
78
79
80
80
83
85
5.1
5.2
6
7
I
9
ilt lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A)ilursra
1 Executive Summary
The 2016 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Annual Report summarizes Avista Utilities'
(Avista) annual energy efficiency achievements for its ldaho electric and natural gas customers.
These programs are intended to deliver all cost-effective conservation with the funding provided
through Avista's Schedules 91 and 191, also known as the "Tariff Rider" which is a non-
bypassable system benefit charge applied to all electric and natural gas retail sales.
Avista's 2016 target as reported in the 2015 Electric lntegrated Resource Plan (lRP) is 11,213
M!Vf'. ln 2016, Avista acquired 45,946 MWh (adjusted reported savings) in ldaho, or 410% of its
target. Primary drivers for electric savings included the nonresidential prescriptive lighting,
residential Home Energy Reports, residentialfuel efficiency, and residential lighting efforts.
Site-specific lighting and Small Business projects also contributed a significant amount to the
overall savings contribution. ln 2016, Avista's ldaho natural gas efficiency portfolio delivered
189,297 therms in savings (adjusted reported gross savings), achieving 166% of the Company's
2016 natural gas target of 114,000 therms as noted in the Natural Gas lRP. Primary drivers for
the natural gas savings include residential prescriptive HVAC, shell, and water heat measures
and nonresidential prescriptive food service equipment.
ln 2016, nearly $2.8 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to
offset the cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the
residential portfolio contributed over 20,216 MWh and over 151 ,000 therms to the annual
energy savings. ln addition, more than '1,100 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential
projects were incented. Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 13,500
measures. Avista's tariff riders funded more than $5.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in
nonresidential and small business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 25,000
MWh and 34,500 therms in annual first-year energy savings. A summary of acquired savings in
2016 by sector is provided for both fuels in Tables ES-1 and ES-2 below.
Table ES-1: 2016 ldaho Electric Energy Savings (Adjusted Reported Gross)
Residential 20,216,014
Low lncome 284,326
Nonresidential 25,244,254
Subtotal 45,744,593
Generation 200,000
Distribution 1,990
Total
I
Segment kwh
45,946,583
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
frvrsra
Segment Therms
Table ES-2: 2016 ldaho Natural Gas Savings (Adjusted Reported Gross)
Residential 151,599
Low lncome 3,116
Nonresidential 34,582
Total 189,297
The above mentioned acquisition has been delivered through localenergy efficiency programs
managed by the utility or third-party contractors. Avista also funds a regional market
transformation effort through the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), however,
reported electric energy savings, cost-effectiveness and other related information is specific to
local programs unless otherwise noted. The savings indicated above are adjusted gross
reported savings based on all program participants.
1.1 Cost-Effectiveness
Avista judges the effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio based upon a number of
metrics. Two of the most commonly applied metrics are the UCT (utility cost test)1 and the TRC
(total resource cost). The UCT is a benefit-to-cost test from the utility perspective including
incentives and excluding net costs and non-energy benefits of participants related to energy
efficiency services. The TRC test is a benefit-to-cost test from the customer perspective
including all measure costs and non-energy benefits and excluding incentives. Both tests
provide insight as to the net value to all customers.
Benefitto-cost ratios in excess of 1 .00 indicate that the benefits exceed the costs. ln 2016,
electric and natural gas gross TRC is 2.17 and 0.49, respectively. Electric and natural gas UCT
test benefit-cost ratios are 2.80 and 1.45, respectively. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 present the TRC
cost-effectiveness results for the electric portfolio and the UCT test results for the natural gas
portfolio.
I Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
2
AEwsrn
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table ES-l :2016 !D Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $31,995,226 5323,220 532,31,9,445
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$2,61 1,373 -S:s,tgs -52,646,558
UCT Benefits $29,383,852 s288,035 529,671,887
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 S58,5G3 s1,995,543
lncentive Costs $8,049,315 ss+g,Ggo s8,599,005
UCT Costs $9,986,294 Soo8,zs3 51,0,594,541
UCT Ratio 2.94 0.47 2.80
Net UCT Benefits Stg,o77,34o
Table ES4: 2016 lD NaturalGas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,099,645 525,41G St,tzs,tzt
Electric Avoided Costs $105,805 SO S105,805
UCT Benefits $1,20s,450 525,476 5L,230,925
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,ql6 S84,513
lncentive Costs $5s9,846
:$205,160 , 5z65,006
UGT Costs $640,883 s208,536 Sa+g,stg
UCT Ratio 1.88 o.L2 1.45
Net UCT Benefits $564,566 -s183,160 s381,405
1.2 Tariff Rider Balances
Beginning in 2016, the ldaho electric tariff rider balances were underfunded by $431 ,783.
During 2016, $6.2 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund electric energy efficiency
while $11.7 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The $5.5 million
3
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
AEvrsrn
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $5.9 million underfunded
balance. The primary driver for the underfunding was the increase in participation in the non-
residential lighting program.
1.3 Third-Party Evaluation
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verify the portfolio energy savings
forthe 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 biennium periods. Avista has reviewed and responded to the
conclusions and recommendations made by the evaluation team for the 2014-2015 biennium
and the status updates can be found in Section 5. Avista appreciates and agrees with the
overall review that programs are operating effectively. A large portion of the recommendations
are around encouraging Avista to continue to deliver programs with the same level of rigor that
has delivered success in the programs to-date.
The evaluation team is conducting on-going evaluation activities for the 2016-2017 biennium
and values presented in this Annual Report and used for the cost-effectiveness analysis are
'adjusted reported values'. Realization rates have not been applied to the 2016 savings
because evaluation activities are only partway to completion and therefore current findings do
not represent a statistically significant portion of the 2016-2017 population. However,
adjustment factors, based on any discrepancies found during the evaluation team's review of
Avista's tracking database, have been applied to Avista's reported savings and are reported
herein as'adjusted reported values'.
ln addition, there is one measure category for which a realization rate has been applied to the
values in the 20'16 Annual Report. Based on the measurement and verification activities for
Avista's prescriptive interior lighting measure category, the evaluation team calculated an
interim realization rate of 71% tor the category. One of the factors behind this realization rate is
based on the evaluation team's review of Tubular LED (TLED) measures incented in the 2016
program year. Specifically, in the 2016 program year, Avista offered two prescriptive lighting
measures forTLEDs:1-Lamp T12lT8 Fixture to 1-Lamp LED SWto 15W, incentivized at $15 per
lamp, and 1-Lamp T12|TB Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 16Wto 23W, incentivized at $10 per
lamp. As early project applications were submitted, Avista became aware that TLED lamps
were labeled under a lower wattage than their DLC (Design Lights Consortium) product
specifications. TLED lamps were found in the market with a labeled wattage o'f 14-15W, while
the DLC testing indicated that these lamps consume 17-18W. The evaluation team believes that
this discrepancy is because TLED lamp power consumption is subject to different ballast
configurations. Thus, a TLED in a low ballast factor (LBF) ballast may only consume 14W, but
in a normal ballast factor (NBF) ballast, the same lamp uses 17W. The DLC maintains
performance data for its certified lamps as tested with a 0.89 ballast factor.
An issue was identified where program guidelines required DLC listed lamps and customers
4 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFwsra
were selecting lamps based on the DLC listing. Early on in 2016 some customers who installed
DLC listed lamps were paid a lower incentive based on the DLC listed wattage rather than the
lamp labeled wattage. Avista agreed that this could be confusing to customers who met the
written program requirements of installing DLC listed lamps and applied for incentives based on
the lamp's listed wattage. Avista clarified that customers should be paid based on the wattage
printed on the lamp packaging. Avista communicated clarifications to customers and vendors
regarding measure eligibility recognizing that some DLC listed TLEDs may have the same
wattage on both the TLED lamp and packaging as well as the DLC listed wattage and some
may differ. This potential delta along with other energy savings data such as hours of use would
be evaluated by the evaluation team.
After the 2016 year had ended, the evaluation team applied a realization rate to the total
savings associated with these measures. Because Avista has adjusted the savings associated
with this measure for the 2017 program year, the evaluation team believes that the final
realization rate for the 2016-2017 evaluation period will increase. ln addition, the measure
category remains cost-effective with the application of the 71 o/o realization rate for the 2016
program year.
1.4 2016 Program Highlights, Challenges and Ghanges
Avista practices active management and continuous process improvement when delivering
energy efficiency programs. Through the evaluation team's on-going evaluation activities and
through internalactive management, Avista recognizes program successes and challenges
throughout the biennium and practices continuous process improvement to strive for the
delivery of successful and cost-effective energy efficiency programs. Some of Avista's 2016
program highlights as wellas some challenges are described below.
Programs that included the commercial lighting and residential electric to natural gas
conversion measures are worthy of highlighting because they included proactive
program management and quality assurance and were able to avoid systemic issues in
the market. Both measure categories saw tremendous growth in 2016. These programs
continued to deliver designed results due to successful, proactive and frequent
communications with industry partners to ensure concerns were addressed and program
guidelines were met.
Another highlight of Avista's adaptive management and striving for process improvement
was seen in the Company's approach to the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program.
Historically, Avista has used the allocated approach forthe internal reporting of savings
and costs associated with the program by state. While the allocation method of splitting
program achievements 70/30 between states is useful to approximate each jurisdiction's
savings achieved, the Company has further refined the process to provide more
accurate savings information. While there were some additional administrative hurdles,
as a result o'f 2016 learnings, going fonrvard in 2017 Avista will be reporting Simple Steps
based on actual sales in each state rather than an allocation of total program results for
5 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
I
AlEvtsra
both internal reporting and annual reporting, energy savings and costs.
. ln 2016, Avista introduced a duct repairand duct sealing rebate in ldaho. Avista had hit
a point of saturation in Washington providing this treatment to underserved
manufactured home customers through a direct install approach that was costeffective
by leveraging state funds. Without access to similar imported funds in ldaho, Avista
designed and implemented a rebated measure approach. This approach was challenged
early on in the implementation and discontinued when Avista was unable to cost-
effectively ensure program guidelines, anticipated savings, and customer care goals
were achieved. Several issues with the program were that the calculated rebate only
covered 30-40o/o of the cost (resulting in customer contributions being required).
Qualified vendors were reluctant or unsuccessful in selling jobs with the customer
contribution met. Additionally, new market players began to offer a free service,
however, quality assurance steps taken by Avista quickly identified systemic deficiencies
in these contractors meeting program guidelines. Due to implementation concerns,
program guidelines not being met, and customers being misled (all of which suggested
anticipated savings would not be realized), the program was discontinued.
Continuing the integrated resource planning and conservation potential assessment processes,
Avista reviews existing and potential programs as part of the DSM business planning process.
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio. The measures available for all sectors were mirrored for Washington programs to
create an ease of program implementation and customer messaging. This implementation
approach was also to allow the Company to have a test year of appropriate savings amounts to
claim and to verifo utility cost effectiveness in ldaho. ln 2016, through adaptive management,
programs were modified to reflect updated savings and cost information that affected incentive
levels. New non-residential offers in 2016 included several lighting incentives as wellas the
expansion of AirGuardian to include rotary screw air compressors and two new food service
equipment measures (electric and natural gas griddles). Commercial power management for PC
networks, clothes washers as well as some lighting measures were discontinued as a result of
the business planning process. Finally, site-specific incentive guidelines were aligned to flat
incentive levels of $0.20 per k\M for electric, $3.00 per therm for natural gas, capped al70o/o of
incremental project costs for projects with a less than 1S-year simple payback. For the
residential sector, the only new offer was duct sealing in ldaho described above. Two measures
were discontinued, both electric and natural gas tank type water heater incentives.
Though the nature of this report is to look backwards on the performance of the previous year,
successes and lessons from this process are applied during the forward-looking business
planning process to inform and improve program design, including program modification and
termination where necessary. Avista remains committed to continuing to deliver responsible and
cost-effective energy efficiency programs to our customers.
6 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEwsra
1.5 2016 Portfolio Trends
Avista experienced increased savings in2016 as compared to its previous years. Much of this
is attributed to the increasing popularity of LED lighting, TLED lighting and fuel conversions.
Avista's 45,744,594 kWh of energy savings from 2016 is more than double that of its
20,012,301 k\'Vh savings from 2015 and more than triple that of the 2014 savings of 13,460,631
k\ /h.
Figure ES-1: ldaho Electric Energy Savings 2014-20162
ldaho Electric Energy Savings 2014-2016
Adjusted Reported 6ross - kWh, lncluding Conversions
uLour-lncome is included in the overall total
50,000,000
2016,45,7M,594
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
2015, 20,0i2,301
20,000,000
2014. 16.214,000
?015, 15,666,200
15.000,000
11,213,000
10,000,000 2014, L3,450,63t
5,000,000
0
2014
lResidential rNonresidential
2015 2016
IOpower/Oracle -Total
.*lRPTarBet
Of Avista's overall Electric savings portfolio, Non-Residential Prescriptive programs produced
2 Savings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported
7
^AEvtsta
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
45o/o of the overall savings portfolio, and combined with Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports,
Residential Lighting, and Fuel Conversions, realized 79o/o of the overall savings for 2016. See
Figure ES-2 for an illustration of these metrics.
Figure ES-2: 2016 Washington Electric Savings Portfolio
2OL6 I D Savi ngs Portfol io Percentages
Note: While Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports continue to be a material part of Avista's
savings portfolio, the savings recognized in 2016 are for the 2016-2017 biennial period. |n2017,
there will be a small incremental adjustment to the 2016 savings amount. For additional
Opower/Oracle information, see Section 3.1.8.
8
Elcctric Fucl
Conversion Program
t7?r
Opowerforacle'
Home Energy
Reports - Elcctric
tlectric Non-
Rceidontlsl
Perscdpttre
4596
AEvtsra
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
hrcrything Else
2t%
t7x
2 Gost-Effectiveness
The 2016 Demand-Side Management (DSM)Annual Report summarizes the Company's annual
energy efficiency achievements of its DSM programs.
Cost-effectiveness was reviewed using four of the five California Standard Practice Tests
including the Utility Cost Test (UCT)3, Total Resource Cost (TRC), Participant Cost Test (PCT),
and Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) tests. For this annual report, cost-effectiveness of DSM
programs is based on unverified adjusted gross savings using methods consistent with those
laid out in the California Standard Practice Manual for Economic Analysis of Demand-Side
Programs and Projects as modified by the Council. Table 2-1 summarizes the allocation of cost
effectiveness components as a cost or benefit to each cost-effectiveness test.
Table 2-1 : Cost-Effectiveness Component lnputs
Utility Energy & Capacity Avoided
Costs
Non-Utility Energy & Capacity Energy
Costs
Non-Energy Benefit lmpacts
lncremental Equipment and
lnstallation Costs Gost
Program Non-incentive (admin) Costs Cost Cost I Cost
lncentive Payments Cost
The cost-effectiveness calculations only include non-energy benefits where the values are
reasonably defensible and quantifiable for a limited number of measures, including water
savings, equipment replacement and operation and maintenance benefits. The calculations also
include health and human safety non-energy benefits (dollar for dollar) for the low-income
programs. Non energy benefits not included, because they are not easily quantifiable, include
benefits for arrearage, health/safety/comfort, system reliability, and site specific air emissions to
name a few. The evaluation team will include survey and on-site questions of participating
customers to determine specific and demonstrable non-energy benefits as found and as
applicable.
Low-lncome conservation items have been separately identified from the Regular lncome
3 Also known as the PAC (program administrator cost) test.
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Benefit
Cost
9
Benefit Benefit
Benefit Benefit
Benefit Benefit
Utility
Gost Test
(ucr)
Total
Resource
Cost (TRC)
Participant
Cost Test
(Pcr)
Rate
lmpact
Measure
(RrM)
Gomponent
Cost Benefit
AIE-ttsta
portfolio in the following tables. For those items, the costs associated with low-income also
lncludes amounts funded to the CAP agencies.
Cost effectiveness results within this report are based on adjusted reported savings. Energy
savings reported by Avista's implementation team (both external and internalto Avista) were
reviewed by the Company's external evaluator and adjusted for any major discrepancies in
reporting. The savings estimates represent gross energy acquisition.
Avoided costs used for the cost-effectiveness valuation of the 2016 electric and natural gas
programs are the avoided costs from the most recently filed electric and natural gas lRPs.
ln summary, electric and natural gas UCT benefit-cost ratios are 2.80 and 1.45, respectively.
Electric and naturalgas gross TRC is 2.17 and 0.49, respectively. Table 2- through Table 2-13
illustrate electric, natural gas, and combined fuelcost-effectiveness, respectively. Regular
income includes all programs offered in the residential and nonresidential sectors (not including
NEEA) and low-income includes all programs offered in the low-income sector.
A)Fwsra
10 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table2-2:2016 lD Electric Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $31,995,226 5323,220 s32,318,445
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$2,611,373 -S:s 185 558
UGT Benefits $29,383,852 s288,035 s29,677,887
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 Ss8,s63 s1,995,543
tncentive Costs $8,049,315 5549,690 59,599,005
UCT Costs $9,986,294 s508,253 s10,594,547
UCT Ratio 2.94 o.47 2.80
Net UCT Benefits 5t9,077,340
Table 2-3: 2016 ID Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $31,995,226 5323,22o 532,318,445
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$2,611,373
Non-Energy Benefits $408,795 s148,881 5557,675
TRC Benefits $29,792,647 5436,91G 530,229,563
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $1,936,979 SsS,ssg Sr,gss,s+g
Customer Costs $1 1,466,759
TRC Costs $13,403,738 SsL6,77s 513,920,513
TRC Ratio 2.22 0.85 2.L7
Residual* TRC Benefits -S79,859 s
*The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. The term "Residual" is
used in lieu of the term "Net" as not to be confused with TRC benefits and costs where Net to Gross
adjustments have been applied.**lncludes costs funded to the CAP agencies.
Regular lncome IPortfolio i
Low lncome
Portfolio I OveratlPortfolio
$19,397,558 -S32o,2LB
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio**
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$16,388,909
.AEvtsta
11 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-s35,185 -s2,646,558
S4sg,2tz 5L7,924,91L
Table 2-4: 2016 lD Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Gross)
Regular lncome
IPortfolio i
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electrlc Bill Reduction $46,533,523 5435,661 546,969,184
Gas Bill Reduction -$76,056 -S1,873 -517,929
Non-Energy Benefits $408,795 S148,88i.55s1,616
Participant Benefits $46,866,262 5582,668 ,547,448,930
Customer Costs $1 1,466,759 54s8,2L2 5Lt,924,971
lncentive Received -$8,049,315 -s549,590 -sg,5gg,oo5
Participant Costs $3,417,444 -S9t,+28 s3,325,966
Participant Ratio 13.7',|N/A 14.27
Net Participant Benefits
Table 2-5: 2016 lD Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $31,995,226 53Z3,ZZO 532,379,445
$43,448,818 S6tqJq6
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Non-Participant Benefits $31,99s,226 53z3,zzo 532,318,445
Electric Revenue Loss
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
$46,533,523 7 969 L84
$1,936,979 Ssg,sog S1,995,543
Customer lncentives $8,049,31s ss+9,690 s8,599,005
Non-Participant Costs $56,519,817 Si.,043,914 557,s63,131,
0.57 0.31 0.s5
Net RIM Benefits -$24,524,592 -5720,694 -525,245,286
AFvtsra
12 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
RIM Ratio
2.3 Natural Gas Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-6: 2016 lD NaturalGas Utility Cost Test (UCT)(Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,099,645 525,476 5L,!25,LzL
UCT Benefits $1,20s,450 525,476 5r,230,925
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,q16 S8+,stg
lncentive Costs $559,846 S205,160 s755,006
UCT Gosts $640,883 5208,636 . 5849,519
UCT Ratio 1.88 o.L2 1.45
Net UCT Benefits S381,406
Table 2-7 : 201 6 lD Natural Gas Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $1,099,645 s25,476 . s1,725,t2t
Electric Avoided Costs $10s,80s So S105,805
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 S69,969 s59,795
TRC Benefits $1,205,276 s95,445 721
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,476 Sg4,513
Customer Costs $2,359,560 5193,794 52,543,353
TRC Costs $2,440,597 Stgl,zlo 52,627,857
TRC Ratio 0.49 0.51 0.49
Residual TRC Benefits -s91,82 -51,327,L45
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$564,566 -s183,160
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
13 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
ElectricAvoided Costs $105,805 SO S1O5,8O5
Table 2-8: 2016 !D Natural Gas Participant Cost (PGT) (Gross)
Overall PortfolioLow Income
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Gas Bill Reduction $2,390,375 S5G,3o8 52,446,693
Electric Bill Reduction $23,468 So s23,468
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 s59,959 Seg,zgs
Participant Benefits $2,413,669 5t26,277 52,539,947
Customer Costs $2,359,560 5183,794 S2,543,353
lncentive Received -$ss9,846 -5205,160 -57o5,006
Participant Costs $1,799,714 -s21,366 51,778,347
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
1.34 7.43
S761,599
Table 2-9: 2016|D Natural Gas Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Gas Avoided Cost Savings $1,099,645 525,476 St,Lzs,Lzt
$613,9s6 5147,643
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Non-Participant Benefits $1,099,64s 525,476 5L,12s,L2L
Gas Revenue Loss $2,390,375 s56,308 52,446,693
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $81,037
:53,47G i 584,513
Customer lncentives $559,846 S205,160 s755,005
Non-Participant Costs
RIM Ratio
Net RIM Benefits
$3,031,259 5z
0.36 0.10
202
0.34
-$'1,931 ,614
A)Ewsra
14 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-5239,468 -S2,t7t,og2
2,4 Gombined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 2-10: 2016 lD Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $32,1 01 ,030
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,511,728 -$9,709 -5L,521,437
UCT Benefits $30,589,302 SErs 77 813
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $2,018,016 s52,04o s2,090,056
lncentive Costs $8,609,161 51s4,849 364 1
UCT Costs $10,627,178 s815,889 iLt,444,067
UCT Ratio 2.88 0.38 2.70
Net UCT Benefits s1s 746
Table 2-11:2016|D Combined Fuel Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Costs $32,101,030 s323,22O 532,424,2s0
Natural Gas Avoided costs -$i,51 1,729 _S9,7Og _$7,52t,437
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 S21g,g5O 5627,47t
TRC Benefits $30,997,923
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $2,0'r8,016 Soz,o+o s2,ogo,o55
Customer Costs $13,826,319 24
TRC Costs $15,844,335 5704,o4s S16,548,380
1.96 0.76 1.91
Residual* TRC Benefits s14,gg1,g04
*The "Residual TRC" is used to denote the difference between TRC benefits and costs. The term "Residual" is
used in lieu of the term "Net" as not to be confused with TRC benefits and costs where Net to Gross
adjustments have been applied.
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$19,962,124 -Sso:,329
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$1s,1s3,588 -577L,684
15 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
s323,220 532,424,250
s532,361 s31,530,284
TRC Ratio
Aivtsra
Table 2-12:2016 lD Combined Fue! Participant Cost (PGT) (Gross)
Regular lncome IPortfolio I
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $46,556,991 s435,661 546,992,652
Gas Bill Reduction -$52,588 -$1,873 -55q,+6t
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 S2i,8,850 5627,47t
Participant Benefits $49,279,931
'I, $zoe,g+s ; 549,988,877
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
$13,826,319
-$8,609,161
24
-5754,849 -59,364,01,1
Participant Gosts $5,217,158 -5LL2,844 55,L04,374
Participant Ratio 9.45 N/A 9.79
iNet Participant Benefits . $44,062 S44,884,5G3
Table 2-13: 2016 lD Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Gross)
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $33,094,870 s348,595 s33,443,566
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Non-Participant Benefits $33,094,870 s348,696 s33,443,566
Electric Revenue Loss $48,923,898 s491,958 549,415,867
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $2,018,016 , 562,04o , 52,080,056
Customer lncentives $8,609,161 S754,849 S9,364,011
Non-Participant Costs $59,551,076 s1,308,857 s60,859,933
RIM Ratio 0.56 0.27 0.55
Net RIM Benefits -Szt 67-$26,456,205 -Sg60,t6z
AEutsra
16 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
582L,790
Regular lncome
Portfolio
3 Programs
3.1 Residential
The Company's residential portfolio is composed of several approaches to engage and
encourage customers to consider energy efficiency improvements within their home.
Prescriptive rebate programs are the main component of the portfolio, but are augmented by a
variety of other interventions. These include: upstream buy-down of low-cost lighting and water
saving measures, select distribution of low-cost lighting and weatherization materials, direct
install programs and a multi-faceted, multichannel outreach and customer engagement effort.
Nearly $2.8 million in rebates were provided directly to ldaho residential customers to offset the
cost of implementing these energy efficiency measures. All programs within the residential
portfolio contributed over 20,200 M\M and over 151 ,000 therms to the 2016 annual energy
savings.
3.1.1 Program Changes
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio which included services to the residential segment. The measures available were
mirrored for Washington programs to create an ease of program implementation and customer
messaging. This implementation approach was also to allow the Company to have a test year
of appropriate savings amounts to claim and to verify utility cost effectiveness in ldaho.
Other residential program changes were made for the 2016-2017 Biennium, including the
discontinuation of programs and changes to eligibility or incentive levels of existing programs.
Avista communicates the majority of program changes once the Annual Conservation Plan is
finalized and then become effective at the beginning of the year. Program changes may also be
made throughout the year as necessary.
For residential programs, rebate amounts were updated to reflect business planning analysis
and to include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. For changes that
were effective January 1 ,2016, Avista continued to accept rebate applications and honored
incentive amounts through March 31,2016 for 2015 measures (the 90 days allowed for a
smooth transition when rebate programs change, allowing enough time for customers in the
pipeline to complete their projects, yet closed out changes in a timely but balanced approach).
The following outlines additions, adjustments and discontinuations of residential programs and
incentive levels beginning in 2016:
17 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A'ivtstu
3.1.1.'l Residential Program Discontinuations
The following measures and/or programs were discontinued from the residential portfolio:
. The Appliance Recycling Program was discontinued in June 2015.
. Electric 35-55 gallon water heater with 0.94EF or higher
3.1.1.2 Residential Program Adjustments
Existing rebate amounts were decreased beginning January 2016 for the following measures:
. Windows decreased to $3.50per sqft from $4.00 per sqft
. Smart thermostat contractor install decreased to $70.00 from $100.00
. Smart Thermostat self-install decreased to $35.00 from $50.00
3.1.1.3 Residential program additions
Along with the reintroduction of natural gas programs, the following measure iterations were
also added to the residential portfolio in 2016:
. Electric to Natural Gas Direct Vent Wall Heater was added to the Fuel Efficiency
Program at an incentive of $1,300
The remaining sub-sections outline each residential program offered in 2016 and the verified
participation, incentives, energy savings, among other program achievements.
3.1.2 HVAC Program
Electric customers with electric home heat are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a
variable speed motor on their forced air heating equipment ($100 rebate), or a conversion of
electric straight resistance space heat to an air source heat pump ($9OO rebate). Natural gas
customers are eligible for a rebate for the installation of a high efficiency furnace or boiler
($300) Both electric and natural gas customers are also eligible for the installation of a smart
thermostat. See Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives
received, and savings achieved.
3.1.3 Water Heat Program
The Water Heat Program offers a $180 incentive for a high efficiency natural gas tankless water
heater, $7 buydown for Simple Steps, Smart Savings showerheads and $35 buydown for
Simple Steps, Smart Savings clothes washers (reflected in point of purchase price). See Table
3-3 and Table 3-4 for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings
achieved.
18 lD 20tO DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.1.4 ENERGY STAR HOMES
Avista customers with a certified ENERGY STAR Home or ENERGY STAR / ECORated
Manufactured Home are eligible for a $1,000 or $800 rebate, respectively. Eligible homes must
be all electric to qualify for these rebate levels. Alternatively, customers who subscribe to Avista
electric service for lighting and appliances and natural gas service for space and water heating
are eligible for a program rebate of $650 regardless of construction type. See Table 3-5 and
Table 3-6 for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.5 Fuel Efficiency
The Fuel Efficiency Program offers incentives for converting existing straight resistance electric
space heat to a natural gas furnace ($2,300 rebate); and/or converting their existing electric
water heater to a natural gas water heater ($6OO rebate). Homes that implement both the
furnace and water heat conversions receive a $3,200 rebate. The program also offers an
incentive for the conversion of electric to natural wall heaters ($1 ,300 rebate). See Table 3-7 for
2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3,1.6 Residential Lighting
Avista continues to participate in the regional manufacturer buy-down of energy efficient lighting,
through Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), its contactors and self-directed
giveaways. The bulbs resulted in 3,317 MWh in annualfirst-yearsavings during 2016 (see
Table 3-6). The Company contributed over $305,448 in incentives toward this buy-down effort
with the overall average incentive of $2.16 for a LED bulb and $0.89 for a CFL bulb.
3.1.7 Shell
The primary measures included in the Shell Program are wall, attic, floor insulation, duct
sealing, and window replacements. lncentives are offered per square foot and vary from
$0.'15lsf for insulation measures to $3.54/sf for windows. See Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 for 2016
firstyear program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.1.8 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Avista launched a Home Energy Reports (HER) program in June 2013, targeting 25,201 ldaho
and high use electric customers. As of December, 2015, Avista had 16,864 customers still
participating in the HER program. ln January of 2016, Avista 'refilled' their existing Home
Energy Reports Program by 8,337 customers bringing total distribution to approximately 25,201
electric customers in ldaho that will receive home energy reports throughout the duration of the
2016-2017 biennium, unless they opt-out or move (Table 3-1 1). No one is allowed to opt-in.
Eligibility fortreatment included several criteria such as sufficient (2year) billing history, enough
19 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AlEvrsra
peers to build comparison group, not in the control group, not a 'do not solicit' customer and
high enough electric use to be costeffectively treated. ln an effort to reduce energy usage
through behavioral changes, Home Energy Reports show personalized usage insights and
energy saving tips. Customers also see a ranking of similar homes, comparison to themselves
and a personal savings goal on the Reports. ln addition to closely matching usage curves, the
similar home comparisons are also based on the following four criteria; square footage, home
type, heat type and proximity.
See Table 3-1 1 for 2016 firstyear program participation, incentives received, and reported
savings.
3.1.9 Customer Outreach
Avista's programs encourage the customer to take action through participation in currently
available programs. Energy efficiency outreach efforts are varied and usually are a combination
of both broad reach and targeted media as well as attendance at local community events.
Energy Efficiency is also featured throughout the year in Avista's "Connections" monthly
newsletter, distributed with the bill and posted online.
Avista's residential outreach included the repeat of the popular broad reach media promotions
"Efficiency Matters" (April-June). Bill inserts offered tips to manage energy use and a link to
rebate offerings.
Although available to all customers, Avista conducts targeted outreach for low income and
seniors. This outreach included five Energy Fairs in September and October - one was held in
Cottonwood, lD, two were held in Spokane, and one each in Colville, WA and Spokane Valley,
WA. While these events may occur in one jurisdiction, the Company anticipates a degree of
spillover where a Washington energy fair located close to the ldaho border will also serve ldaho
customers (and vice versa). One of the Spokane Energy Fairs was part of a broader event, the
Avista Low lncome Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP)Appointment Day which was a new event
that promoted efficiency and assistance like other energy fairs but partnered with the local CAP
agency, SNAP, to offer actual energy assistance appointments. Communications tactics used
to increase awareness of the Energy Fairs included a direct mail, posters, emails, news
releases, and prinU radio/ online advertising. ln person outreach efforts also included mobile
outreach such as numerous partnerships with local food banks as well as other venues and
workshops at senior centers. Efforts included nearly 150 events in 2016 with over 13,000
customers reached.
ln the summer and fall o'f 2016, Avista ran a new broad-reach campaign to increase awareness
of and participation in energy efficiency programs for residential customers. The "Way to Save"
20 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
3.1.9.1 Residential Customer Outreach
AFwsrs
campaign utilized TV, radio and online advertising to communicate low-cost/ no-cost energy
savings tips and to promote the rebates we offer. Social media was utilized throughout the
campaign to extend reach.
Avista continued to update and promote the online fuel cost calculator that helped customers
understand the value of natural gas compared to other heating fuel types. We also leveraged
local sponsorships to highlight "Energy Efficiency Night" at Spokane Chiefs hockey and
Gonzaga University basketball games.
3.1.9.2 Nonresidential Customer Outreach
|n2016 Avista had varied activities for commercial and industrial customers. Print ads and case
studies featuring two of our large account customers ran in various local, regional, trade, and
national (zoned) publications (September-December). We updated collateral and delivered via
the commercial account executives to highlight the multifamily natural gas direct use program.
Targeted print advertising opportunities were utilized at local contractor associations that
promoted residential programs as well as engaged developers.
We also continued our effort of building awareness of energy efficiency and programs through
our electronic newsletter to commercial customers.
Avista tried more frequent updates in 2014 but transitioned to the current approach in 2016 that
offers 1-2 in-person updates to contractors, typically during the beginning of the year if major
program changes occur. Typically these outreach efforts are targeted in two groups; HVAC
dealers focused on primarily residential programs and outreach for lighting contractors and
electricians focused on commercial lighting. We offered these in various locations throughout
the service territory and through webinar to increase accessibility.
As opportunities arise, energy efflciency tips are provided to local media outlets. Typical topics
include winter weather and summer heat energy efficiency tips. Avista provides updates to area
vendors about program information through mailings and webinars who in turn pass that
information on to their customers. The general awareness efforts successfully position Avista to
actively pursue and react to these earned media opportunities.
These are the highlights of specific activities that are reinforced and compliment the ongoing
outreach and messaging through the website, customer service reps, printed rebate forms,
trainings, sponsorships, etc.
21 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AHvrsra
Table 3-1 : 2016 lD Electric HVAC Program Summarya
Proiecl
Counl
kvvh
Savings
Therms
Savings
k\ /h
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Benefts
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentiveMeasurelncentives
uti Costs
E Smart Thermostat DIY 9 $s05 5,409 $3,280 $0 $0 91,857 $201
E Electric to Air Source Heat Pump 47 $48,527 231,475 $178,904 $0 $0 $262,405 $10,938
E Variable Speed Motor 278 $32,007 122,042 $80,1 99 $0 $0 $253,012 $4,903
E Smart Thermostat Paid lnstall 29 $2,776 17,429
$344 3,716
$10,568
$2,872
$0
$0
$0 $19,563 $646
$0 $300 $176E Ducl Sealing 2
E Duci Sealing (Manufactured)$8,776 54,162 $41,861 $0 $0 $7,6s0 $2,s59
E Duci Sealing + CO2 $1,032 9,290 $7,1 80 $0 $0 $1,31 1 $439
E Duct Sealing + CO2 (Manufactured) 15 $3,384 15,930
Total
4 All kVVh and them values reporled in this table are gross, excluding the eflect of applicble NTG ratios.
$12,312
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$0 $0 $2,9s0 $7s3
$20,615
22
436 i97,352 459,453 $337,177 $o $0 $549,048
.frutsta
Table 3-2: 2016 lD Natural Gas HVAC Program Summarys
G Natural Gas Boiler 9 $2,680 918 $0 $5,927 $0 $73,958 $1 82
G Natural Gas Furnace 818 $244.791 $531,700 $16,717
Natural Gas Heat 34 $1 ,1 96 884 $0 $4,475 $0 $6,919 $138
G Smart Thermostat Paid
lnstall with Natural Gas Heat 180 $12,599 4,680 $0 $23,690 $0 $77,563 $728
Total 1041 $261,265 - 90,735 $0 $578,050 $0 $690,1,l(t 517,764
Table 3-3: 2016 lD Electric Water Heat Program Summary3
Simple Steps Clolhes Washers 397 $41,755 28,98'l $19,641 $0 $0 $36,397 $1,201
Simple Steps Showerheads 6/J $3,505 43,806 $25,1 89 $0 $0 $s,257 $2,226
E Electric Water Heater $46 278 $1 97 $0 $0 $4,002 $12
Total $3,438
5 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excludjng the efiect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
23 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms Avoided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefts
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentiveMeasurelncentivesCountUtilily Costs
Projed kwh Therms
84,254 $0 S543,958 $0
kVVh A\oided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncenliveskvvh I Therms
1,272 $4s,306 73,065 i45,027 s0 $0 s45,656
AYivtsra
2
i erolecti Count
Table 3.4: 2016 lD Natural Gas Water Heat Program Summaryo
Project
Count
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CostsIvleasu re lncentives i kwh i Therms
Simple Steps Showerheads 873 $3,033 1,495 $0 $6.092 $0 $5,257 $400
G 50 G Natural Gas Water Heater J $176 21 $0 $94 $o $148 $13
G Tankless Water Heater 451 $80,763 26,216 $0 $92,1 52 $0 $41 5,869 $2,832
Total 1,327 i
i27,7320$83,972 $o $98,337 s0i
i
II $421,274 $3,245
Table 3-5: 2016 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Electric Program Summarya
Project
Count
k!ryh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kVVh Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentiveNon-EnergylncentivesMeasureBenefits Costs
E Energy Star Home - Stick Built, lD 11 $3,728 72,193 $73,048
E Energy Star Home - Manuf, Furnace 14 s12,849 95,858 $96,993 $0 $2,308 $42,000 $5,930
E Energy Star Home - Manuf, Heat Pump $918 4,390 $4.442 $0 $0 $3,000 $272
Total $17,494 172,41 $174,483 $o 12,s08 $54,74826 $10,668
Table 3-6: 2016 lD ENERGY STAR Homes Natural Gas Program Summarya
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
incentiveMeasureProjecl
Count lncentives I kwh i Therms
Costs
G Energy Star Home - Natural Gas Only $045 203 $0 $1,803 -$r74 $3,000 $ss
Total 1 t645
6 All kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
$0 $1,803 -1174 $3,000 $s5203
24 lO 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectivencss Analysis
lr,vtsra
$0 $0 $9,748 $4,466
1
Table 3-7: 20{6 lD Electric Fuel Conversion Program SummaryT
E Eleciric To Natural Gas Water Heater 41 $28,221 165,271 (8,8s6) $117,320 -$44,616 $0 $80,142 $7,173
E Electric To Natural Gas Wall Heater 9 $13,422 98,388 (4,1e4t $69,842 -$21,129 $4,270
E Electric To Natural Gas Furnace 85 $224,280 1,021,020 (42,330)$960,087 -$318,001 $0 $338,995 $58,699
E Eledric To Natural Gas Furnace and
vvt-l 414 $1,519,826 6,641,802 (295,596) $6,245,429 -$2,220,U2 $0 $1,899,517 $381,843
Total $451,985
Table 3-8: 2016 lD Electric Residential Lighting Program Summarys
Simple Steps LEO 96,211 $207,428 1,934,536 $1,3s3,707 $0 $0 $232,144 $82,76s
Simple Steps CFL 109,935 $98,020 1,382,065 $682,593 $0 $o $165,848 $41,733
Total 206,146 $305,,148 3,316,601 - $2,036,300 $124,499
TAll kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG raiios
25 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report E Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
k\ /h
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Cosls
Non-
incentive
Utility
Costs
lncenlives I k\ /h i ThermsProjecl
Count
$0 $34,860
549 i1,785,749 7,926,481 (3s0,976)$7,392,578 -$2,604,389 $o $2,353,515
kv\h Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Costs
energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentive
Utility Costsherms
I t'ton- |
Measure
Measure Project
Count lncentives kv1/h
Table 3-9: 20'16 lD Electric Shell Program Summary
Projecl
Counl
KVVh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cosls
Non-
energy
Benefits
Customer
Incremental
Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CoslsThermslncenliveskwhMeasure
E Attic lnsulation with Electric Heat 17 $3,076 14,',t24 $17,741 $0 $601 $1s,882 $1,08s
E Floor lnsulalion with Electric Heat 6 $1,593 6,937 $6,523 $0 $212 $7,170 $399
E Wall lnsulation Wth Electric Heat 6 $1,888 15,302 $ 14,389 $0 $170 $6,001 $880
E Wndoly Replc from Double Pane W Eleclric
Heat 58 $28,329 132,222 $124,331 $0 $0 $263,223 $7,602
E Wndow Replc from Single Pane W Eleclric 80 $39,379 U8,672Heat $327,864 $0 $0 $306,656 $20,045
Total
G Attic lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat
G Floor lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat 5
Table 3-10: 2016 lD Natural Gas Shell Program Summary
$937 413 $0 $4,267 $0 $8,839
$30,010
$476
$1 31
157 $74,266 517,257 $490,848 $0 $983 $598,932
$3,1 84 1,49721 $0 $15,474 $0 $20,636
Projecl
Count
klri/h
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-incentive
Utility CoslsMeasurelncentives i kvvh i Therms
G Wall lnsulation with Natural Gas Heat $1,224 319 $0 $3,300 $0 $8,462 s101
G \Mndow Replc with Natural Gas Heal 180 $70,032 16,1 15 $0 $166,549 $0 $834,070 $5,118
G Duct Sealing
G Duct Sealing (Manufactured)
$744
39 $5,807
$0
$0 $10,726
$2,408 $0
$0
$1,000
$s,900
373
1,661
$74
$330
G Ducl Sealing + CO2 70 $1 3,848 5,222 $0 $33,714 $0 $1 7,3s0 $1,036
G Ducl Sealing + CO2 (Manufaclured)172 $34,048 7,327 $0 $47,306 $0 $41,125 $1,454
Total $8,720
26 lD 2015 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
497 $129,826 32,928 $o $283,745 $0 $937,382
25,201
State lnitial 2016 Particjpaling
Customers
Table 3-l 1 : Opower/Oracle Participation Sum mary
Table 3-12: 2016|D Electric Residential Opower/Oracle Program Summary
lD 2016 OSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
ID
Energy $197,012Reports
27
$0 $0$0 7,750,716 $683,539 $0
Projecl
Count
kvvh
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Cosls
Non-
incentive
Utilily Cosls
lncentivesMeasure kwh
,*vtsta
Therms
3.1.10 Residential Trend Analysis
During 2016, the Company realized increased savings from the previous year with the total
savings increasing by 3,669,517 K\ /h from 8,795,781 KWh in 2015 to 12,465,298 KWh in
20168. The largest contributors to the overall savings 'for 2016 were Avista's residential lighting
and fuel efficiency programs.
3.1.10.1 Residential Lighting
The residential lighting program obtained 27o/o of the overall residential savings (3,316,601
k\lVh) in 2016. ln the previous years, for comparison, residential lighting obtained 5,151,365
kWh in 2015 and 4,760,480 kWh in 2014.
Please see Figure 3-1 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program.
Figure 3-1: ldaho Electric Lighting Trend Analysiss
lD Electric Lighting - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL4-20L6 (kwh)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 20L4
4,760,48O
20L5
5,151,365
20L6
3,316,601_Lighting
LED lighting continues to gain popularity in the residential lighting market. ln 2016, Avista saw
an increase in number of overall units going from 53,01 5 in 2014 and 36,298 units in 2015 to
96,211 units in 2016. CFL lamps continue to decline in number of units purchased by
customers as it gives way to the LED emerging technology. ln 2016, Simple Steps reported
109,935 units which is lower than the 189,226 in 2015 and 206,422 units in 2014.
8 Amounts exclude the Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports of 5,685,205 K\A/h in 201 5 and 7,750,716 in 2016
amounts are based on biennial savings.
9 Savings numbers tor 2014 are unverified gross, 201 5 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported g
A'Evtsta
28 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
See figure 3-2 for an illustration of the CFL and LED trends for 2014,2015 and 2016.
Figure 3-2: ldaho Electric Savings and Unit Count - Residential Lightinglo
Residential Lighting
4,5t 0,000
4,000,000
3.500.000
3,000,000
2.500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,O00,000
500,000
250.0004,t79,278
3,636.394
200,000
150,000
!
=L,934.536 Cl
1,382,065 100,000
119,394
923,288
50,000
ICFL Savings
r LED Savings
-
cFL Units
-
IED U nits
2014
3,636,194
1,1 19,394
246,422
5 3,015
2015
4.L79,278
923,288
149,726
3 6,298
2016
1,382,065
L,934,516
109,935
96.211
3.1.10.2 Residential Fuel Efficiency Program
ln September 2014, the fuel efficiency tariff was revised which resulted in increased incentives
for electric to natural gas conversions. The electric to natural gas furnace conversions incentive
increased from $900 to $2,300, the Electric to Natural Gas Water Heater Conversion increased
from $300 to $600 and the Electric to Natural Gas Space and Water Heat Conversion increased
from $1,200 to $3,200. These changes helped to increase the number of conversion projects
from 64 in 2014 to 341 in 2015 and 549 in 201611. The fuel efficiency program obtained 64% of
the overall residentialsavings (7,926,481KWh) in 2016 and also experienced a significant
savings growth from the previous year (2,786,477 KWh in 2015).
Please see Figure 3-3 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
11 lncludes furnace, furnace and water heater, and water heater programs.
1'Evtsta
29 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10 Savings numbers fot 2014 are unverified gross, 2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported gross.
Figure 3-3: ldaho Electric Fuel Conversion Trend Analysisl2
lD Electric Fuel Conversion - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL4-2OL5 (kwh)
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
l_,000,000
0
Fuel Conversion
2014
633,503
20L5
2,786,477
2016
7,926,481,
3.1.10.3 Residential Shell Programs
The residentialshell program obtained residential savings o'f 517,257 kWh in 2016which
represents 4% o'f the overallsavings in2016. Although this is a large increase from 2015, in
which the program obtained savings of 174,473 kwh, it approximates the level of savings from
2014 which obtained 446,778 kwh.
ln each year, the major contributor to of savings in the Shell program was attributed to single
and double pane window replacements. Window replacements accounted for 389,455 klvfi
savings in 2014, 157 ,072 kWh of savings in 2015 and 480,894 kwh of savings in 2016. The
reason for the lower 2015 savings numbers are due to a lower realization rate from the 2015
lmpact Memorandum. ln that year, ldaho shell measures received a 39o/o realization rate which
had an impact on the overall savings reported. For 2016, the realization rate for these
measures approximated 100%. Please see table 4 of the 2016 Electric lmpact Memorandum
(Appendix A) for further details.
Please see Figure 3-4 below to illustrate the trend in savings from this program
lzsavings numbers lor 2014 are unverified gross, 2015 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported
30 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
f;;;I
A'Evrtn
Figure 3-4: ldaho Electric Shell Trend Analysisl3
lD Electric Shell - Residential Program Totals
Savings 2OL4-20t6 ( kwh)
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Shell
20L4
446,778
2015
774,453
20L6
5L7,257
3.1.10.4 Opower/Oracle Home Energy Reports
Energy efficiency savings derived from Avista's behavior program continue to contribute a large
percentage to the company's overall portfolio of savings. For 2016, the Opower/Oracle Home
EnergyReportscapturedsavingsofT,T50,T16kWh. \Milethissavingsamountisrecordedin
2016, it should be noted that the level of savings represents the amount that is estimated to be
captured over the two year biennia of 2016-2017 . While the 2017 savings may approximate the
2016 savings number, the incremental savings in 2017 is expected to be marginal as compared
to the amount recorded in 2016.
Prior to the 2016-2017 biennium, the Home Energy Reports were conducted over a two and a
half year span rather than its current two year span. The below graph illustrates the comparison
of the prior two and a half year program with the current two year program.
13 Savings numbers tor 2014 a re unverified gross, 20 1 5 is verified g ross, and 2016 is adjusted reported
3't lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEurstt
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Opower/Oracle Trend Analysisla
lD Electric Opower/Oracle - Residentia! Program Totals
Savings 20L3-20L7 (kwh)
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 20L3-2015
5,685,205
20L6-20L7
7,750,7L6
3.2 Low lncome
The Company leverages the infrastructure of a single Community Action Program (CAP) agency
to deliver energy efficiency programs for the Company's low income residential customers in the
ldaho service territory. The program is designed to serve Avista residential customers in ldaho
whose income falls between 175 percent and 250 percent of the most current federal poverty
level.
A CAP agency has the resources to income qualiff, prioritize and treat client's homes based
upon a number of characteristics. ln addition to the Company's annual funding, the agency has
other monetary resources they can leverage when treating a home with weatherization or other
energy efficiency measures. CAP agencies either have in-house and/or contract crews to install
many of the efficiency measures of the program.
During the 2016 program year, the Low-lncome program captured energy savings of 284,326
kWh. Please see table 3-13 below for a recap of the 2014,2015, and 2016 program year
results for the Electric program.
14 Savings numbers fot2014 are unverified gross, 2O15 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported
AFvrsra
32 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 3-'13: 2014-201 6 Electric Program Overview
Participation and Savings
Project Count 3,640
Energy Savings (kWh)430,356
Program Benefits
UCT Benefits $340,991
TRC Benefits S43G,91G $773,781 $930,418
Program Costs
$
UCT Costs s608,253 $775,927 $839,024
TRC Costs $766,s45
BenefiUCost Ratios
Utility Cost Test (UCT)0.41
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)1.21
The following table recaps the 2014-2016 Natural Gas Program for Low-lncome. During 2016,
the company achieved 3,1164 therms of savings.
Table 3-14:2014-20'16 Natura! Gas Program Overview
Participation and Savings
Project Count
Energy Savings (Therms)3,116 NA
Program Benefits
$
525,476
TRC Benefits
Program Costs
UCT Costs 08,636 NA
TRC Costs SLB7,z7o
BenefiUCost Ratios
UCT Benefits
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2016 2015 2014
3,603 3,762
284,326 426,815
$
S288,035 $467,447
$
$st6,ll5 $77s,927
0.47 0.60
0.85 1.00
202 NA
2016,2015:2014
s95,445 NA
33 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
NA
^#vtsrll
Utility Cost Test (UCT)0.12
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
3.2.1 Program Changes
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio which also included services to the low income segment. The measures available
mirrored the Washington agencies in order to create an ease of program implementation
especially since the lone ldaho agency serves Asotin County, Washington in addition to the
Company's entire north ldaho service territory. This implementation approach was also to allow
the Company to have a test year of appropriate therm savings amounts to claim and to verify
utility cost effectiveness in ldaho.
On the electric side, the Company continues to reimburse Community Action Agencies for 100%
of the cost of installation for most electric energy efficiency measures defined on the "Approved
Measure List". The Company also continued to offer a "Rebate List" of additional energy
efficiency measures that allows the agency to receive partial reimbursement for improvements
that are not as costeffective as those on the Approved List but may still be necessary for the
homes overall energy efficiency and functionality. The reimbursement amount is equal to the
Company's avoided cost energy value of the improvement. This approach focuses the Agency
towards installing measures that have the greatest cost-effectiveness, from the utility
perspective, but still offers an opportunity to fund other measures if needed. To allow for
additionalflexibility, the agency may choose to utilize their Health and Safety dollars to fully fund
the cost of the measures on the Rebate list.
3.2.2 2016 Program Details
Eligible efficiency improvements are similar to those offered under the traditional residential
rebate programs. An Avista approved measure list is provided to the agencies in an attempt to
manage the cosleffectiveness of the low income program from a utility perspective (see Table
3-155). The agency was given discretion to spend their allotted funds on either electric or
natural gas efficiency improvement based on the need of the clients. The program includes
improvements to insulation, infiltration, ENERGY STAR@ doors and refrigerators along with fuel
conversion from electric resistance space and water heat to natural gas. Avista's funding covers
the full cost of the improvement from the Approved Measures list.
34 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
NA
NA
NA
0.51 NA
Table 3-{5: 2016 Low lncome Program Approved Measure List
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
. Air infiltration
. Duct sealing
. ENERGY STAR doors
. ENERGY STAR windows
. High efficiency air source heat pump
(8 HSPF)
. Electric to air source heat pump
. Attic insulation
. Duct insulation
. Floor lnsulation
. Wall lnsulation . Electric to natural gas furnace
. Electric to natural gas furnace and water heat
Along with the Approved Measure List, the Company has available a Rebate List of eligible
measures. The Rebate List allows the agencies to receive funding for other measures that are
not as cost-effective as those on the Approved List but is still a necessary energy efficiency
improvement. This measure list is outlined in Table 3-16.
Table 3-16: 20{6 Low lncome Program Rebate Measure List
. High efficiency water heaters (0.93 EF)
o ENERGY STAR refrigerators
. Electric to ductless heat pump
High efficiency water heaters (0.62 EF)
Electric to natural gas water heater
lndividually, the contract for the agency allows them to spend their annually allotted funds on
either natural gas or electric efflciency measures at their discretion, and charge a 15 percent
administration fee towards the cost of each measure. The agency may choose to use up to 15
percent of their annualfunding allocation towards Health and Safety improvements in support of
energy efficiency measures installed in the home. lt is at the agency's discretion whether or not
to utilize their funds for health and safety and other home repairs to preserve the integrity of the
energy efficiency improvements that were installed. Refer to Table 3-18 through Table 3-20 for
ldaho low income program participation and savings details for the 2016 program year.
Potential program participants are primarily identified through the Agency's energy assistance
services. They are screened for eligibility and sent over to the Agency's weatherization
department for assistance with energy efficiency. The Company's Contact Center, CARES
. Air infiltration
. Duct sealing
. ENERGY STAR doors
. ENERGY STAR windows
. High efficiency furnace (90% AFUE)
. Attic insulation
. Duct insulation
. Floor insulation
. Wall insulation
a
Fuel Conversion Measures
Electric Measures Natural Gas Measures
Fuel Conversion Measures
35 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
a
A)Evrsra
representatives, Consumer Affairs, Community Affairs, DSM and other field personnel also
provide the agency with various leads throughout the year as they come in to contact with
customers who may benefit from the Agency's weatherization program and other services.
ln addition to the contract for energy efficiency services, the Company provides the ldaho
agency with a $50,000 conservation education (Con/Ed) grant funded through the DSM tariff
rider. The grant supports the cost of outreach personnel and materials to reach individuals
seeking energy assistance at the CAP office and in Avista's ldaho service area. The objectives
of CAP's low income consumer energy conservation education program include:
. lncrease Con/Ed knowledge and awareness of low income individuals
. Build capacity for Con/Ed in local communities, and
. Decrease energy consumption
The purpose for Con/Ed activity is to equip Avista's low income individuals and families, seniors,
disabled and vulnerable customers with information and resources to effectively manage their
energy use.
Con/Ed funding may be used to underwrite Agency personnel dedicated to conducting low-
income outreach and education related activities and materials (e.9. collateral and low-cost
energy saving items) for distribution to the Company's ldaho customers that receive education
and outreach.
Agency personnel implement a variety of activities that seek to heighten awareness about
efficient energy use management and methods for conserving energy. These activities are
achieved through low, medium and high impact strategies. These strategies start with basic
awareness building (low impact) activities through print materials that are available to individuals
as they wait for their energy assistance appointment in CAP offlces; through this strategy 4,190
individuals were reached in 2016. Medium impact activities include workshops and participation
in community events to increase individual knowledge of energy conservation; through this
strategy 1,530 individuals were reached. Finally, high impact activities include one-on-one
education with customers during their energy assistance intake appointmenl,4S2 individuals
received this form of education.
ln partnership with Demand Side Management, the Company's Consumer Affairs department
hosts additional conservation education and outreach for our low income, senior and vulnerable
customers. The company reaches the target population through workshops, energy fairs, mobile
and general outreach. Each of these methods include demonstrations and distribution of low-
cost and no-cost materials with a focus on energy efficiency, conservation tips and measures,
and information regarding energy assistance that may be available through agencies. Low
income and senior outreach goals increase awareness of energy assistance programs such as
the Low lncome Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Project Share in all
36 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
jurisdictions.
The Company has recognized the following educational strategies as efficient and effective
activities for delivering the energy efficiency and conservation education and outreach:
. Energy Conservation workshops for groups of Avista customers where the primary
target audiences are seniors and low income participants.
. Energy Fairs where attendees can receive information about low cost/no cost methods
to weatherize their home; this information is provided in demonstrations and limited
samples. ln addition, fair attendees can learn about billing assistance and
demonstrations of the online account and energy management tools. Community
partners that provide services support to increase personal self-sufficiency for this
population are invited, at no cost, to host a booth to offer information about their services
and how to access them.
. Mobile Outreach is conducted through the Avista Energy Resource Van (ERV) where
visitors can learn about effective tips to manage their energy use, bill payment options
and community assistance resources. ln ldaho, ERV visited over 16 senior centers, 28
food bank distribution centers, 10 general outreach events and supported 1 energy fair.
General Outreach is accomplished by providing energy management information and resources
at events (such as resource fairs) and through partnerships that reach our target populations.
General Outreach also includes bill payment options and assistance resources in senior and low
income publications. ln 2016, Avista participated in over 50 events that included workshops,
energy fairs, along with mobile and general outreach that touched over 3,500 individuals. Table
3-177 is an overview of different activities by type in lD.
Table 3-17:20161D Low Income Outreach Event and Bulb Giveaway Summary
Energy Fairs 45 45
Outreach 10 613 663
Mobile 28 2,051 2,094
Workshops 16 813 823
3,625
Number of
Events/Activities Contacts, CFLs , LEDsDescription
55 3,522
37 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
ldaho Total
1
Table 3-'18: 2016 lD Electric Low-lncome Measures Summaryls
CFL Bulbs s10124Ssoat,873 Ssrr SO SO 52s6
Project
Count
kwh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs*
Non-lncentive
Utility CostsMeasurelncentives
E HE Air Heat
E Star
2
t So+g s33 Ssrs5s+s SO SO
5o Ss+r
s68
E INS - Attic
E INS. DUCT
5 723
1 ssoz 346 - s338 so
i
i
IISo Szqz
S496
542
E INS - FLOOR
E INS - WALL
10
52,zss 3,638 797
E HE Water Heater
E ENERGY STAR WINDOWS
1 87
740 758 684 24
E ENERGY STAR DOORS
E TO G FURNACE CONVERSION (3,s12)st76,748 92,2ss s2s,3s9s117,,24s s43,soo29
E TO G H2O CONVERSION
E To Heat Conversion 15
15 All kwh and therm values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicble NTG ratios.
,780
38 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectivoness Analysis
Ss3,33sS118.090 so,3oo SO
S4.3ss So S10.923
s3.987 s0 So S1.388
s26.6t2 s0 s0 s\2.579 s3.308
3 S7.Bs2 So s0 S1.s981
16 518,490 L2,327
7 s4,331 2,022 s4,386 so ss,0s4 s3,439 ss4s
33 sr02,7t} 47,570 12,294]. s35,572 -sg,AZ6 s16,s00 s81,s66 54,422
.#vtstrl
FEDERAL H&HS
E DUCT SEALING LI
Total excluding Customer
Outreach LEDs
Customer Outreach LEDs (Low
lncome)
S968
S3s,18s
not ze(o program.
s30.25s s0 So s18,382 522,t4s
1 0
202 s
'Customer are measure
incremental values are used in cost-effectiveness calculations.
any
Table 3-19: 2016 lD Electric Low-lncome Customer Outreach Summaryls
3,401 So 43,251
10 7,787 so
Project
Count
lncentive
s
kwh
Savings
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoide
d Cost
Customer
lncremental
Costs*
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
Measure Saving Energy
Therms Non-
s Benefits
Agency Admin Fee 3 S3,s48
Table 3-20: 2016 lD Natural Gas Low-lncome Measures Summary17
0 SO so So S3,s48 SO
kVVh Ar/oided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided Costs
Non-energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental Costs
Non-incentive
Count Utility Costs
ProjedMeasure lncenlives I kWh I Therms
G AIR INFILTRATION 20 526.6t7 209 So 51,349 So 524,or3 S184
16 All kntr values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of applicble NTG ratios.
17 All kVVh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
39 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
,#vtsra
EATRTNFTLTRATION , 12 , s14,202 . 2,987 - , 53,167 . S0 . S0 511,278 . 5394
E HEALTH & HUMAN SAFETY : 32 s77,s69 : 1,s81 : - . S1O1 SO 577,542 562,042 513
s2.863 So s2.274
I
G 50 GALLON
NATURAL GAS WATER
HEATER 3 5148 - zL So se4 SO S129 Sr:
G Energy Star Doors 10 ,s6,794,-,140: s0 s1,466
"
57,220 " Ss,954 52oo
G ENERGY STAR
WINDOWS ,75816s60
G INS-,TTIC 10 S6,880 L28 SO S1,341 So s6,123
G INS. DUCT
G INS - FLOOR
4 153 SO seos So
7 Sg,+so 368 So S3,8s4 So S8,303
G INS - WALL
G HEALTH & HUMAN
SAFETY
Health & Safety Admin
Fee
So
SO
5
3
t72
Sssg 1 so 5o Ssag So
20 S33,620 1 so So s48,s26 s31,014
Total 729 s20s,160 - 3,116 so s2s,476 s69,969 sras,zg+$3,476tcuslomer incremental costs are the incremental measure cosl absent any incentive. Therefore, the values should not be zero for the low income program. These
incremental values are used in cost-effectiveness calculations.
40 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
G HE FURNACE , 1s S60,s20 , - 961 _ S0 . 56,204 S10,46s Ss3,1s0 , Ss47
G DUCTSEALING LI 13 Ss,949 402 So S2,sss So Ss,3ss s3s4
3.3 Nonresidential
The nonresidential energy efficiency market is delivered through a combination of prescriptive
and site-specific offerings. Any measure not offered through a prescriptive program is
automatically eligible for treatment through the site-specific program, subject to the criteria for
participation in that program. Prescriptive paths for the nonresidential market are preferred for
measures that are relatively small and uniform in their energy efficiency characteristics.
ln 2016, more than 1,100 prescriptive and site specific nonresidential projects were incented.
Additionally, the Small Business program installed over 13,500 measures. Avista's tariff rider
funded more than $5.8 million for energy efficiency incentives in nonresidential and small
business applications. Nonresidential programs realized over 25,200 MWh and 34,500 therms
in annual first-year energy savings. Table 3-221 lhrough Table 3-276 provide detail on the
electric, natural gas, and dualfuel nonresidential programs.
3.3.1 Program Changes
New to 2016, the Company reintroduced natural gas energy efficiency programs throughout the
DSM portfolio which included services to the nonresidential segment. The measures available
were mirrored for Washington programs to create an ease of program implementation and
customer messaging. This implementation approach was also to allow the Company to have a
test year of appropriate savings amounts to claim and to verify utility cost effectiveness in ldaho.
Other program changes made at the beginning of 2016 to the nonresidential programs include
changes to eligibility or incentive levels. Avista communicates the majority of program changes
once the Business Plan is finalized and those changes become effective at the beginning of the
year. ln addition, some program changes are made throughout the year as necessary but these
are less typical.
For nonresidential programs, rebates were updated to reflect business planning analysis to
include inputs such as new unit energy savings (UES) and cost values. Changes were effective
January 1 , 2016 and Avista accepted rebate applications through March 31 , 2016 for 2015
measures and amounts. This 90 day grace period allows for a smooth transition when rebate
programs change to allow enough time for customers in the pipeline to complete their projects
yet close out changes in a timely but balanced approach.
The following sections outline additions, adjustments and discontinuations of nonresidential
programs and incentive levels beginning in 2016.
41 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvrsra
3.3.1.1 Nonresidential Program New Offerings
Along with the reintroduction of natural gas programs in 2016, Avista added the following:
. AirGuardian Program is being offered for rotary screw air compressors 15 HP or higher
. Food Service Equipment Program
' Electric Griddles $505
. Refer to the Table 3-2021 below for lighting changes
3.3.1.2 Nonresidential Program Discontinuations
The following programs/measures were discontinued during the 2016 program year:
. Power Management for PC Networks
. Commercial Clothes Washers
. Refer to Table 3-2021 below for lighting measure changes
3.3.1.3 Nonresidential Program Adjustments
The following adjustments in program requirements or incentive levels were made to the
nonresidential programs beginning January 2016.
lncreases to existing rebates were made for the following measures:
. Refer to Table 3-20 below for lighting
. Commercial lnsulation Program
. Wall lnsulation to at least Rl 1 up to R18 $0.40 per square foot
. Wall lnsulation to at least R19 or greater $0.45 per square foot
Decreases to existing rebates were made for the following measures:
, Refer to Table 3-2021 below for lighting
COMMERCIAL SITE.SPECIFIC INCENTIVES
For projects and measures that do not fit into one of Avista's prescriptive commercial
rebates, Avista offers site-specific (custom) incentives. Projects must be evaluated prior
to purchasing or installing the equipment, to determine if an incentive is available based
on eligibility requirements.
Electric incentives will continue to be offered in both ldaho and Washington. lf
approved, electric incentives for eligible projects will be up to 20 cents per kWh for
projects with a simple payback less than 15 years. lncentives will be capped al70% of
42 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
I
t
AFvtsrn
incremental project costs.
Natural gas incentives will continue to be offered in Washington and will also be offered
in ldaho. Natural gas incentives for eligible projects will be up to $3.00 per therm for
projects with a simple payback of less than 15 years. lncentives will be capped al70o/o
of incremental project costs. As referenced above, beginning in 2016, natural gas
projects with a simple payback of over 15 years will not be eligible for incentives. lf
projects are to be considered in place prior to January 1"1, 2016 they must be submitted
to Avista immediately for evaluation and contracted prior lo 41112016.
Table 3-2021:2016 Commercial Lighting Program Changes
Exterior 70-90 watt HID to 15-
25 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 90-100 watt HID to
20-30 watt DLC approved
LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$55
$75
$55
$75
Chan ged wattage req uirement.
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
2015
Ilncentive I
201 6
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
Exterior 175 watt HID to 30-
79 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$1 35 35$
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
Exterior 250 watt HID to 80-
140 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 320 watt HID to 100-
160 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 400 watt HID to '100-
175 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$145
$1 B0
$145
$1 B0
Changed wattage req uirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
$255$255
A'ivtsta
43 ID 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
I
50 watt DLC approved LED $i30 $130 i 3l3H:#:J;?;o',"#':"il:^'
Fixture or Retrofit Kit , NO screw in.
Site Specific
2015
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
Exterior 1000 watt HID to
300-400 watt DLC approved
LED Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior 250 watt HID to 80-
140 watt DLC approved LED
Canopy Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$61 5
Added to the incentives form.
DLC qualified products only
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in. Must have > 4
and all canopy fixtures installed
for incentive.
551$1$60
Exterior 320 watt HID to 100-
160 watt DLC approved LED
Canopy Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$250 $250
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in. Must have > 4
and all canopy fixtures installed
for incentive.
Exterior 400 watt HID to 100-
175 watt DLC approved LED
Canopy Fixture or Retrofit Kit
Exterior -New Construction-
175 watt HID to 30-79 watt
DLC approved LED Fixture
Exterior -New Construction-
250 watt HID to 80-100 watt
DLC approved LED Fixture
Exterior-New Construction-
320- 400 watt HID to 100-175
watt DLC LED Fixture
$325 $325
$1 35
$145
$1 B0 $1 B0
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in. Must have > 4
and all canopy fixtures installed
for incentive.
Decreased lncentive. Changed
wattage requirement. DLC
qualified products only. NO
screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
Changed wattage requirement.
DLC qualified products only.
NO screw in.
25$
$145
AFvtsra
4 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2015
lncentive
20'16
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
Exterior-Sign Retrofit-T1 2's to
LED $7 lF12 $1 7 lF12
Required >40,000 hour LED
life and at least five year
warranty. Count only 1 side of
Sign
lnterior 250 watt HID to 80-
140 watt DLC approved LED Site Specific $165
Fixture
Added. Must run > 80 hours
per week. DLC qualified
products only.
lnterior 400 watt HID to 100-
175 watt DLC approved LED
Fixture
Site Specific $265
Added. Must run > 80 hours
per week. DLC qualified
products only.
lnterior 1000 watt HID to 300-
400 watt DLC approved LED Site Specific $615
Fixture
Added. Must run > 80 hours
per week. DLC qualified
products only.
lnterior 250 HID to 4-Lamp
HP T8 or 2-Lamp T5 Fixture $90 $1 75
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28walt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.ors for QPL.
lnterior 250 HID to 4-Lamp
HP T8 or 2-Lamp T5 Fixture
plus OC Sensors
$1 20 $205
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL.
lnterior 400 HID to 4-Lamp T5
Fixture lncreased lncentive.
lnterior 400 HID to 6-Lamp T8
Fixture $1 20 $1 75
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
vrrvrrw.cee 1.org for QP L.
$1 20 $1 55
AFstsra
45 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2015
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 400 HID to 8-Lamp T8
Fixture
lnterior 40 watt Incandescent
to 6-10 watt Energy Star
Rated LED Lamp
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL.
5 lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only
$25
0
$145
1$
lnterior 60 watt lncandescent
to 9-13 watt Energy Star
Rated LED Lamp
$12 01$
Decreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lnterior 75 watt lncandescent
to 9-16 watt Energy Star
Rated LED Lamp
lnterior 100 watt
lncandescent to 12-20 wall
Decreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
Added to lncentive form. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only.
Discontinued from the
lncentive Form. Can be
evaluated Site Specifi cally
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
$15
Site Specific $85
$0
$15
5$t 01$
Energy Star Rated LED Lamp
lnterior Over 150 watt
lncandescent to 2x4 DLC
approved LED Fixture
lnterior Over 150 watt
lncandescent to HP T8
Fixture
lnterior 20 watt MR16 lo 2-4
watt Energy Star Rated LED $10
MR16 Lamp
lnterior 35 watt MR16 to 4-6
watt Energy Star Rated LED
MR16 Lamp
$40
$11 $16
46 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$2s
lYvtsra
2415
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 50 watt MR16 to 6-9
watt Energy Star Rated LED
MR16 Lamp
lnterior 75-100 watt
lncandescent Can Light to
12-20 wall Energy Star LED
Can Light Fixture
lnterior 32 watt CFL Can
Light to 12-20 watl Energy
Star LED Can Light Kit
lnterior No Occupancy
Sensor to Occupancy Sensor
that controls greater than 170
watts
$12
$45
Site Specific $15
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Lamp only.
lncreased lncentive. Energy
Star Rated LED Can Light
Fixture Retrofit only.
Added to the lncentive Form
Energy Star Rated LED Can
Light Fixture/ Retrofit only.
lncreased lncentive.
31$
$30
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to 4-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified 2x4 Fixture
Site Specific $40
Site Specific $15
Added to Form. DLC Qualified
Fixture Only. Must operate >
80 hrs. per week.
Added to form. T8's must use
HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
Decreased lncentive. T8's
must use HP T8's and 25-28
watt Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12nB Fixture to 3-Lamp HP $32
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$30
AEusra
47 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$30 $45
2015
lncentive
2416
lncentive Program ChangesLighting
lnterior 4-Foot 4-Lamp
T12|TB Fixture to 2-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
$35 $50
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP T8's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot 3-Lamp
T12|TB Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
$60 $30
Decreased lncentive. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only
>80 hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot 3-Lamp
T12n8 Fixture to 2-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
use HP TB's and 25-28 watt
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.ors for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lncreased lncentive. T8's must
lnterior 4-Foot 2-Lamp
T12n8 Fixture to 1-Lamp HP $13
T8 Fixture or Retrofit Kit
use HP T8's and 25-28 wall
Lamps. HP T8's go to
www.ceel.org for QPL. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot 2-Lamp
T12lI8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
Site Specific $20
Added to Form. DLC approved
LED Fixtures only. >80
hrs./week
lnterior 4-Foot T12lTB Lamps
to TLED's- DLC Qualified 8-
15 watt TLED Lamps only
Site Specific $15
Added to Form. DLC approved
TLED Lamps only. TLED
Types A, B, C and D.
lnterior 4-Foot f 12fi8 Lamps
to TLED's- DLC Qualified 16-
23 watt TLED Lamps only
Site Specific $1 0
Added to Form. DLC approved
TLED Lamps only. TLED
TypesA, B, C and D can be
used.
$15 $30
48 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$20
AEvtsra
2015
lncentive
2016
lncentive Program GhangesLighting
lnterior 8-Foot 4-Lamp
T12lI8 Fixture to 8-Foot 4-
Lamp or 4-Foot 8-Lamp HP
T8 Fixture
$54 $o
Discontinued from the
lncentive form. Can be
evaluated Site Specifically
lnterior 8-Foot 2-Lamp
T12118 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 2x4 Fixture
$80 $50
Decreased lncentive. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only
>80 hrs./week
lnterior B-Foot 1-Lamp
T12fi8 Fixture to DLC
Qualified LED 1x4 Fixture
$40 0$2
Decreased lncentive. DLC
approved LED Fixtures only
>80 hrs./week
The remaining sub-sections outline the nonresidential prescriptive and site specific program
paths offered in 2016 and the 2016 Small Business program. The adjusted reported
participation, incentives, energy savings, etc. for each measure offered in the programs is
outlined in Table 3-22 through Table 3-27.
3.3.2 Prescriptive Path
Prescriptive paths do not require pre-project contracting, as the site-specific program does, and
thus lend themselves to streamlined administrative and marketing efforts. lncentives are
established for these prescriptive programs by applying the incentive formula contained within
Schedules 90 and 190 to a prototypical installation. Actual costs and savings are tracked,
reported and available to the third-party impact evaluator. When applicable, the prescriptive
measures utilize RTF unit energy savings. See Table 3-22 and Table 3-23 for 2016 firstyear
program participation, incentives received, and savings achieved.
3.3.3 Site Specific Path
Site specific is the most comprehensive offering of the nonresidential segment. Avista's Account
Executives work with nonresidential customers to provide assistance in identifying energy
efficiency opportunities. Customers receive technical assistance in determining potential energy
and cost savings as well as identifying and estimating incentives for participation. Site specific
incentives are capped at seventy percent of the incremental project cost for all projects with
simple paybacks of less than 15 years. All projects must have a measure life of 10 years or
more. Site specific projects include appliances, compressed air, HVAC, industrial process,
49 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
motors (non-prescriptive), shell and lighting, with the majority being HVAC, lighting and shell.
See Table 3-24 and Table 3-25 for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received,
and savings achieved.
3.3.4 Small Business Program
Direct-install measures include:
. Faucet aerators
. Showerheads
. Pre-rinse spray valves
. Screw-in LED's
. Smart power strips
. CoolerMisers
. VendingMisers
3.3.5 Prescriptive Lighting Adjustment to Reported Savings
The evaluation team conducted document reviews and onsite verification activities on a sample
of 2016 nonresidential projects. Based on these activities, the evaluation team calculated an
interim realization rate of 71o/o'for the prescriptive lighting measures. One of the factors behind
this realization rate is based on the evaluation team's review of Tubular LED (TLED) measures
incented in the 2016 program year.
Specifically, in the 2016 program year, Avista offered two prescriptive lighting measures for
TLEDs:
1-Lamp T12|TA Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 8W to 15W, incentivized at $1 5 per lamp
1-Lamp T12lT8 Fixture to 1-Lamp LED 16Wto 23W, incentivized at $10 per lamp
50 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
The Small Business (SB) program is administered by SBW consulting and is a direct
installation/audit program providing customer energy-efficiency opportunities by: (1) directly
installing appropriate energy-saving measures at each target site, (2) conducting a brief on-site
audit to identify customer opportunities and interest in existing Avista programs, and (3)
providing materials and contact information so that customers are able to follow up with
additional energy efficiency measures under existing programs. This program is only available
to customers who receive electric and/or natural gas service under Rate Schedule 11 in ldaho
and Washington. Schedule 11 customers typically use less than 250,000 k\ /h per year. See
Table 3-26 and Table 3-276'for 2016 first-year program participation, incentives received, and
savings achieved.
AEvrsra
As early project applications were submitted, Avista became aware that TLED lamps were
labeled under a lower wattage than their Design Lights Consortium (DLC) product
specifications. TLED lamps were found in the market with a labeled wattage o'f 14-15W, while
the DLC testing indicated that these lamps consume 17-18W. The evaluation team believes that
this discrepancy is because TLED lamp power consumption is subject to different ballast
configurations. Thus, a TLED in a low ballast factor (LBF) ballast may only consume 14W, but
in a normal ballast factor (NBF) ballast, the same lamp uses 17W. The DLC maintains
performance data for its certified lamps as tested with a 0.89 ballast factor.
An issue was identified where program guidelines required DLC listed lamps and customers
were selecting lamps based on the DLC listing. Early on in 2016 some customers who installed
DLC listed lamps were paid a lower incentive based on the DLC listed wattage rather than the
lamp labeled wattage. Avista agreed that this could be confusing to customers who met the
written program requirements of installing DLC listed lamps and applied for incentives based on
the lamp's listed wattage. Avista clarified that customers should be paid based on the wattage
printed on the lamp packaging. Avista communicated clarifications to customers and vendors
regarding measure eligibility recognizing that some DLC listed TLEDs may have the same
wattage on both the TLED lamp and packaging as well as the DLC listed wattage and some
may differ. This potential delta along with other energy savings data such as hours of use would
be evaluated by the evaluation team.
After the 2016 year had ended, the evaluation team applied a realization rate to the total
savings associated with these measures. Because Avista has adjusted the savings associated
with this measure for the 2017 program year, the evaluation team believes that the final
realization rate for the 2016-2017 evaluation period will increase. ln addition, the measure
category remains cost-effective with the application of the 71 o/o realizalion rate for the 2016
program year.
51 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsra
Table3-22i 2016 lD Electric Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summary18
PSC lnsulation
ESG PSC Case Lighting 71 $137,499 946,780
$s,s34 $0 $0 $7,011 $56,789
$21 5,853 s0 $0 s183,127 $10,424
$1,534 7,825
kvvh
Savings
Therms
Savings
kWh Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-Energy
Benef(s
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
lncentivesProjed
Count
ESG PSC Cases $1 25 1,365 $3s0 s0 $0 $625 $770
ESG PSC Controls o $4,100 24,306 $10,017 $o $0 $6,468 $6,124
ESG PSC i/otors
PSC Food Service Equipment
12 $14,550 155,792
$3,560 49,007
$72,497
$20,s02
$o
$0
$0
$0
$14,900 $2,314
$69,030 $2,88214
PSC Green Motors Rewind 12 $1 ,690 19,519 $6,219 $0 $0 $47,s74 $61 0
PSC Lighting Exterior
PSC Lighting lnterior
PSC Motor Controls HVAC
124 $233,932 1,397 ,765
781 $4,296,904 17,599,014 $1 1,573,235
$599,851
$235,372
$0
$0
$0
$383,531
$21,973 $514,960
2 $44,820 478,441 $0
$9,879
s4,906,338 s82,962
$50,035 $22,218
AirGuardian 3 $10,862 45,260 $ 15,410 $0 $0 $10,862 $13,419
Total
18 All kwh and them values repoiled in this table are gro$, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG ratios.
t208,393
52 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysas
i4,749,577 20,725,074 i12,754,84 $0 0405,504 $5,810,931
^4ststa
Measure
't,031
Table 3-23: 2016 lD Natural Gas Nonresidential Prescriptive Measures Summaryle
PSC Food Service Equipment 21 $44,242 20,483 $0 $8s,099 $0 $155,554 $31,801
PSC Commercial HVAC I $6,845 3,312 $0 $'t7,725 $0 $95,'r71 $6,624
Total $38,425
Table 3-24: 2016 lD Electric Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summaryr6
SS HVAC Combined 6 $2,1 85 12,331 $6,503 $0 $0 $18,2't7 $220,076
SS lndustrial Process 1 $92,219 768,491 $1,995,567 $0 $0 $153,396 $/.'t,725
ESG SS Cases $479 1,895 $987 $0 $0 $890 $246
ESG SS Controls 3 $11,372 64,872 $31,989 $0 $0 $16,353 $3,347
SS Lighting Exterior 19 $71,275 381,373 $2,189,277 $0 $0 $236,381 $s23,600
SS Lighting lnterior 36 $252,047 1,542,143 $3,196,458 $0 $0 $482,336 $31,054
SS Multifamily Fuel Conversion 2 $66,s00 46,947 (2,116)$0
Total s820,048
19 All kwh and them values reported in this table are gross, excluding the effect of appli€ble NTG rataos.
53 lD 2016 OSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
kl /h
Avoided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefils
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncenlive
Utility
Cosls
lncentives kwh ThemsMeasureSavings I Savings
Projed
Counl
29 $51,087 23,795 $o $102,824 $0 1250,724
kwh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Cuslomer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
ThermsMeasureSavingslncentives I kWh SavingsProjeci
Couni
$21,992 -$6,984 $0 $21 9,040
68 i496,077 2,818,052 (2,116)$7,e2,773 -$6,984 $o $'r,126,61 3
.*vtsra
Non-
Energy
Benelits
SS Appliances
Table 3-25: 2016 lD Gas Nonresidential Site Specific Measures Summary
I $1,879 610 $0 $3,264 $0 $4,773 $1,220
kwh
A\oided
Cosls
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
kwh ThermsMeasureSavings I Savings
Project
Count
SS HVAC Combined $3,212 : 1,043 :$o $5,582 l$oi $6,986 $2,086
ESG SS Cases $51 3 ?oo $0 $1,070 $0 $2,7s4 $400
Total
SB Appliances
3 $s,604 1,853 $0
Table 3-26: 2016 lD Electric Nonresidential Small Business Summary
622 $108,888 382,380
s9,9r6 $0 $14,513 $3,706
$83,567 $0 $0 $108,888 $4,876
k\ lh
Avoided
Costs
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
Non-
lncentive
Utility
Costs
ThermsMeasureSavingslncentives I kWh SavingsProjecl
Count
SB Audit
SB Lighting
Total
5,463 $1 38,396
16,567 $472,503 1,279,300
$0 $0 $1 38,396 $4,98s
$225,219 $60,451
$637,s60 $0 $0 $472,503 $70,312
$o
10,482 $0$553,993 $0$225,219 896,920
Table 3-27: 2016 lD Gas Nonresidential Small Business Measures Summary
2,478 $19,637 421,828 8,934 9105,80s $25,062 $0 $1 9,1 30 $9,366
$9,366
SB Water Heat
Total
54 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2,478 t19,637 421,828 8,934 $105,805 $25,062 $0 $19,130
kwh
A\roided
Cos{s
Therms
Avoided
Cost
Non-
lncentive
Utility Costs
Projeci Therms Nonk\ /hlncentivesMeasureCountSavings I Savings
.#vtsr,a
lncentives
1
Energy
Benefits
Customer
lncremental
Costs
3.3.6 Non-Residential TrendAnalysis
During 2016, total non-residential savings significantly increased from the previous yearwith the
totalsavings increasing from 5,360,823 KWh in20151o25,244,254 KWh in 2016 (a 19,833,431
KWh change). The largest contributors to the overall savings for 2016 was a result of the
company's prescriptive interior lighting program which obtained 17,599,014 KWh or 70% of
overall non-residential savings. ln Figure 3-5, the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior
programs have been identified by the yellow bars for 2014,2015 and 2016.
As compared to the prior years' results, the prescriptive interior lighting program obtained
twenty-five times the savings in 2016 over the 717,780 KWh savings in 2015 and 542,648 in
2014.
Other Non-Residential Measures, which are identified by the orange bars, continued to increase
going from 4,643,043 KWh in 2015 to 7 ,645,240 KWh in 2016. The individual programs and
measures included in this category for 2016 include Small Business Lighting (896,960 kwh),
Energy Star Grocers Prescriptive Case Lighting (946,780 kWh) and Site Specific lndustrial
Process (768,491 kwh). ln 2015, the largest contributors to this category included Prescriptive
Energy Smart Case Lighting (719,497 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart lndustrial Process
(390,989 kWh) and Site Specific Multifamily measures (272,581 kwh). For 2014, the largest
contributors were Site Speciflc HVAC Combined (636,815 kwh), Prescriptive Energy Smart -
Case Lighting (518,839 kWh) and Site Specific lndustrial Process (437,212 kwh)
All other lighting measures, identified by the grey, blue, and green bars in Figure 3-5 remained
relatively level as compared to the Non-residential Prescriptive Lighting - lnterior program.
Figure 3-5 below summarizes these savings for lhe 2014-2016 annual periods.
55 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A'Ettsta
27,500,000
25,000,000
22,500,000
20,000,000
17,500,000
15,000,000
12,500,000
10,000,000
7,5@,000
5,000,000
2,500,000
Figure 3-5: ldaho Electric Non-Residential Trend Analysis20
lD Electric Non-Residentlal Program Summary
Savlnss 2014-2016 (kwh)
2016, 25,2M,254
)074, 6,411,265
2015, 5.360,823
2074 2015
rOtherNon.ResidentialMeasuresrPrescriptiveLighting-Exterior rPre5criptiveLighting-lnterior
ISite Specific tiglairts - Exterior ISite Specifi( Lighting - lnterior
-All
Non,Residential Me*ure
2016
re.*,. nl-r
20 Savings numbes for 2014 are unverified gross, 201 5 is verified gross, and 2016 is adjusted reported gross.
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis56
.*vtstil
4 Evaluation, Measurement, and
Verification (EM&V)
Nexant, lnc., in partnership with Research lnto Action, (the evaluation team) was retained as the
Company's external evaluator to independently measure and verifi7 the portfolio energy savings
for the 2016-2017 biennium period.
The following sections outline the major recommendations from the impact and process
evaluation reports completed for the 2014-2015 portfolio of programs and notes what changes
were made to the 2016-2017 Avista programs as a result of these evaluations.
4.1 Process Evaluation Summary
Conclusions and recommendations from Avista's2014-2015 process evaluation2l report and
subsequent implementation actions taken by Avista are summarized below.
4.1.1 Cross-cutting
Gonclusion 1: Contractors are key program partners.
Contractors are the driving force of Avista's rebate programs, as they inform both nonresidential
and residential consumers about Avista's rebate opportunities and convince them to purchase
qualifoing equipment. The nonresidentialcontractors also initiate a notable portion of work in
comparison to customer-initiated jobs and appear to be playing a larger role in application
preparation than in years past. Both nonresidential and residentialcustomers report being highly
satisfied with contractors and are taking into account contractor's recommendations on what to
install. Although developing a trade ally network is not a priority, there are several things that
can be done short of an official network that could result in increased participation and savings.
Reco m m en d ati o n s : I n c rea se s u p p o rl fo r c o ntracto rs.
Consider the following suggestions to continue strengthening relationships with contractors and
to improve their effectiveness in generating program savings:
1. Offer an opt-in mailinq list to contractors. Contractors subscribed to this mailing list would
receive regular information on program offers, changes, trainings, and other program
supporting information. This list would be open to any interested contractor.
2. Promote outreach to contractors: Encourage program staff and account executives to
engage further with contractors via events for contractors, such as local trade association
meetings, to further educate contractors and nudge them to cross-promote the rebate
21 Avista 2012-2013 Process Evaluation Report, The Cadmus Group, lnc., May 15,2014.
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis57
programs to their customers. Additionally, training can help contractors up-sell high
efficiency equipment through the program by improving their understanding of and ability to
sell high efficiency solutions. For example, Avista could support contractors attending
NEEA's recently launched comprehensive training for lighting contractors and distributors.
3. Share effective messaqinq or marketino collateralwith contractors. Contractors could
support program and marketing staff by providing insights into how to best target certain
customer types, learn from Avista on how to better target certain customer segments, and
possibly promote cross-program referrals and participation. As findings from the evaluation
show that most contractors specialize in the nonresidential or residential sectors, even if
they serve both, developing sector-specific messaging may be particularly effective.
4. lnvestigate offerinq cooperative (co-op) marketinq. Co-op marketing can help contractors
effectively market the program consistent with Avista's objectives and increase customer
perceptions of contractor's credibility and cross-promote other programs.
Status: We have in the past offered quarterly updates to contractors and attempted to
further engage them. There was limited engagement in the additional events and we have
focused on 1-2 per year with high engagement at outreach early in the year where we
reiterate program guidelines, updates and changes. We have established a web page for
contractors where they can go for reference materials. We have broadened our
communication of program changes sending both HVAC and Electrical (Lighting) as well as
residential and non-residential in order to avoid gaps in communicating with contractors. We
have discussed co-op marketing opportunities and are evaluating such opportunities with
internal stakeholders.
Some other outreach efforts include our Questline newsletter which is available to
businesses and vendors alike. lt provides regular updates on energy related issues and
Avista programs. Our commercial and industrial outreach has centered on case studies that
provide customers and vendors a starting point for proposing energy efficiency measures.
We have also underwritten vendor training and are active in related groups like BOMA and
NEEA lighting efforts.
Conclusion 2: Although Avista and its implementation contractors deliver rebate
programs efficiently, promoting the programs further could help maintain or even
increase participation.
Several indicators suggest program promotions could be optimized. First, participants and
nonparticipants expressed high interest in learning more about Avista's rebate programs,
indicating that although they may be aware of Avista's offers, their knowledge is limited.
Second, a majority of residential participants who indicated learning primarily about Avista's
offers through contractors were not aware of other program opportunities outside the program
/
58
AEvtsra
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
they participated in
Recommendation: Develop more ahilities to target marketing. For examplg cross-
promote programs to recent pafticipants by acknowledging their recent participation and
informing them of other program opportunities applicable to their home or business.
Status: Avista continues to cross-promote additional programs in our small business effort
where we emphasize additional opportunities and have seen additional throughput. Work
with marketing as they evaluate Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software
solutions that can enable us to track customer participation in different programs and cross-
promote additional offerings. We also continue to utilize our existing direct mail channels
such as the customer newsletter and bill inserts.
Recommendation: For residential customers, continue improving messaging in direct
mail promotions to better communicate program information since residential customers
prefer to receive this information via mail.
Status: ln 2014 and 2015 we utilized direct mail to promote our electric to natural gas
conversion rebate. ln 2016, energy efficiency was included via direct mail in our
Connections customer newsletter as part of our, "Efficiencies Matter" and "Way to Save"
Campaigns; we also utilize bill inserts to extend our message as appropriate.
4.1.2 Nonresidential, lncluding Small Business
Conclusion 3: Although declining participation rates could threaten Avista's ability to
achieve long-term goals, evaluation results point to opportunities to drive additional
savings.
Developing new strategies to encourage deeper savings or increased participation will be
paramount to reversing the decline in participation and achieving longterm savings goals.
Almost onethird of nonparticipants reported they will make a building upgrade in the next two
years, indicating a continued potentialfor program participation. ln particular, evidence suggests
that much opportunity remains for converting lighting from T12s.
Recommendation: Develop a marketing approach specifically targeting replacement of
Tl2lamps.
The switch to a T8 baseline in 2012had a dramatic effect on participation because the rebates
became far less attractive to customers to upgrade from T12s.22 While it may not be feasible for
Avista to alter the baseline forT12 change-outs, Avista should look into developing targeted
marketing strategies for convincing nonresidential customers with T12s to replace them with
more efficient lighting, focusing not only on savings but improved lighting quality and
performance. Avista could begin by targeting businesses that the Small Business Program has
22 Avery similar thing happened to another program administrator in Missouri. See Ameren Missouri
Report 20'15.
59 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
identified as still having T12s.
Stafus: Currently, Avista has prescriptive incentives for electric commercial customers
for replacing T12's or TB lamps with Tubular LEDs (TLEDS). To replace T12 lamps with
TLEDS, the customer will need to replace the T12 ballast with a LED driver or a ballast
that supports the TLED lamp. This incentive is extremely popular and does not require
additional marketing, at this time. Lighting contractors have been heavily marketing
these incentives and numerous customers are changing out their lamps. Avista also has
prescriptive commercial lighting incentives for replacing T12's Fixtures with new or
retrofit High Performance TB (using low wattage T8 lamps-25 or 28 watt) or DLC
qualified LED fixtures. lt was found to be cost effective only for lighting with run times
greater than 80 hours per week. This limits the business marketing audience-electric
commercial customer that would qualify for this incentive. Target marketing only to the
business customer that qualifies would be difficult.
Many customers with existing T12's fixtures are most likely rate Schedule 1 1's. Avista
currently has a Small Business program that is treating those customers and cross-
promoting other opportunities like lighting. Avista is also piloting additional lighting (T12
replacements) for this customer segment as an expansion of the current program.
Questline Newsletter is another avenue to let Avista electric commercial customers know
about Avista's incentives for T12 conversions and other energy efficient lighting
incentives.
Recommendation: Work with nonresidential lighting contractors to promote replacement
of T12lamps.
Contractors make their living by selling equipment. Avista should work with nonresidential
lighting contractors to make sure they are fully aware of the advantages that more efficient
lighting (including the reduced wattage tube lighting that NEEA is targeting through its Reduced
Wattage Lamp Replacement lnitiative) offer their customers.
Sfafus: Avista currently markets to lighting vendors through Avista Commercial Lighting
update newsletters and vendor outreach workshops about the T12 lamp conversions.
The lighting vendors and contractors have been responsive and market the Tl2lTS lamp
replacement to TLED lamp conversions and many customers are taking advantage of
the incentives.
Recommendation: Consider claiming Simple Sfeps savrngs for bulbs purchased for the
n o n re s i d e n ti a I secto r.
The evaluation found that about 12o/o of Simple Steps LED sales and somewhere from 5% to
12% o'f Simple Steps CFL sales go to nonresidential customers. The mean hours of use for
60 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvrsrn
such lighting is much higher in a nonresidential than residential settings, meaning that the total
Simple Steps savings is potentially higher than currently estimated, and at a minimum, Avista
should consider claiming the additional savings for these purchases.
Sfatus: This was considered, however, upon further review we chose to continue to just
use the RTF UES, even if it might be slightly conservative given some longer runtime
commercial applications.
4.1.3 Residential
Conclusion 4: Participation in the Avista rebate programs has rebounded since 2013
driven by a fivefold increase in shell program participation.
Rebate program participation reached a low point in 2013, after which participation increased
year over year by 51o/o from 2013 to 2014 and by 43% from 2014 to 2015. This is a positive
sign; however, maintaining or increasing program participation requires cost effective savings
opportunities for residential customers. Avista's residential programs operate in a fast-changing
market. Consumers are adopting LEDs rapidly, 23 retailers are transitioning away from CFLs to
LEDs,24 and the federal government and regulators are mandating higher efficiency standards
for bulbs and other energy efficient technologies.2s The convergence of these forces has
implications for the cost effectiveness of Avista's downstream rebate programs. Program
administrators throughout the United States are exploring and testing alternative program
designs such as upstream and midstream designs in response to the evolving market. Although
Avista is currently participating in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program (a midstream
program), when asked about future opportunities, program staff did not mention any upcoming
pilots or programs that apply these types of designs.
Recommendation: Continue regularly reviewing the expectedsavings and cost-
effectiveness of fhe measures in residential portfolio and exploring the benefits and
costs of other program designs including upstream andlor midstream designs.
Consider these suggestions:
1. Continue monitorinq the technoloqical advances and availability of ductless heat pumps and
water heatino equipment. Surveyed contractors recommended both of these categories as
candidates for inclusion in Avista's programs. NEEA, for example, has been working to
promote the savings potential of heat pump water heaters in the Northwest via the Northern
23 1 of 20 A-line bulbs sold nationally was an LED in third quarter oI z}14,whereas in the quarter prior to that, it was 1 in 30. This
statistic comes from the 2015 LED Market lntelligence report by Bonneville Power Administration.
https://www.bpa.gov/ee/utility/research-archive/documents/momentum-savings-resources/led_market_intelligence_report. pdf
24 Soura, Kim, 2016. Walmaft to transition tighting products away from compact ftuorescent to LED. Retrieved from
http://talkbusiness.neV20l6/02/walmart-to-transition-lighting-products-away-from-compact-fluorescent-to-led/
25 The lighting standard, established by the Energy lndependence and Security Act of2007, requires that light bulbs use about 25
less energy by 2014. New efficiency heating and cooling standards from the U.S. Department of Energy, which have into
Jan. 1,2015, will increase the efficiency of heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment in tn
61 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AVvtsrt
Climate Heat Pump Water Heater Specification,26 and The Northwest Power and
Conservation Council has identified both of these measure types as promising technologies
in the recently adopted Seventh Power Plan.27
2. Explore upstream proqram opportunities outside of the liohtinq market. Upstream incentive
programs offer the potential to increase the adoption of energy efficient technologies at a
lower cost compared to downstream incentive programs. Program administrators in
California and elsewhere have successfully tested or used upstream program designs for
technologies that Avista currently incents, including HVAC equipment and water heaters.28
Sfafus: The business planning process includes an annual review of expected savings
and cost-effectiveness for residential measures. We ensured that ductless heat pumps
and heat pump water heating technologies received additional review as we didn't
currently have incentives. We are planning incentives for both in 2017. Also we have
added upstream buydown opportunities for water heating savings in both low flow
showerheads and clothes washers.
Conclusion: Residential customers who rent their home are underserved.
Nonparticipants say living in a rental property prohibits them from making improvements. This
was the second most commonly cited barrier to making energy efficient upgrades among
nonparticipants (after the up-front cost barrier). More than a quarter (27o/o) of nonparticipant
survey respondents were renters, whereas only 3% of the participant survey respondents were
renters. Renters account for about onethird of the population in Avista territory.ze
Currently, Avista serves renters via the low-income program. The CAP agencies reported
having difficulty serving the low-income renter population because it is difficult to convince
landlords to participate. Additionally, there appears to be no multifamily program in the Avista
portfolio that could serve this market, although Avista does offer an incentive for a natural gas
space and water heating measures to multifamily property owners.
Recommendation: lnvestigate energy savings opportunities in the rental market.
Consider the following suggestions:
1. Estimate the number and distribution of rental units in the sinole familv. manufactured home.
and amono multifamilv buildinos. Analyzing these data geographically and by vintage would
likely yield insights regarding the energy saving potential in these markets.
26 http,//neea.org/northernclimatespec/
27 http:/www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan 17 tplanl
28 Quaid, M. and H. Geller (2014). Upstream tncentive Utitity Programs: Experience and Lessons Learned.
http ://www.swene rgy. org.
29 US Census Bureau. "B25OO3 : Tenure." 2O1O - 2014 American Community Survey S-Year Estimates.
62 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvrsra138
2. Conduct needs assessment research with landlords to understand their needs and concerns
and explore ways to bolster their willinoness to make energy efficiency uporades on their
properties. This research should consider the needs landlords serving low-income renters
as well as renters not eligible for the low income program.
Conduct needs assessment research with renters to understand their needs and the barriers
to particioation thev face. For example, although some energy savings activities may not be
appropriate for renters (for example, HVAC system replacement), other activities such as
installing energy efficient lighting and/or advanced power strips could be appropriate.
Status: Renters are a difficult market due to the split incentive issue where landlords are
hesitant to make capital improvements where the return is to the renter rather
themselves. Our billing system does not have the ability to break down customers by
single family, manufactured home and multifamily. There are some manual analysis that
could be done to query customers with landlord agreements, but it is a manual process
at this time. We have worked with renters who inquire about energy efficiency programs
and have had some success with certain programs, like electric to natural gas
conversions where landlords have taken advantage of rebates that currently cover a
significant portion of the retrofit and while the energy savings accrue to the renter it's an
obvious, and lower than otherwise out of pocket improvement to the property.
We also tailor our outreach efforts with our energy fairs and mobile outreach to include
low-cost improvements that most renters can do within their rental agreement such as
rope-caulk, window kits and v-seal.
4.2 lmpact Evaluation Summary
4.2.1 Nonresidential Programs
4.2.1.1 Site Specific Program
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constitutes more than 60% of the program electric
energy shares. Within the last 2 years, Avista has increased their level of quality assurance and
review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation team's analysis resulted
in a 99% realization rate for the Site Specific program. The strong realization rate indicates that
Avista's internal process for project review, savings estimation, and installation verification are
working to produce high quality estimates of project impacts.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate this
program with the current level of rigor. For interior lighting projects, Avista should consider
applying the interactive factors deemed by the RTF to quantify the interactive effects between
lighting retrofits and their associated HVAC systems. More specifically, for interior lighting
63 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A'Ettsta
projects, Avista assumes a standard interactive factor o'f 7 .7% for buildings with air conditioning
The RTF's values for interactive factors vary depending on heating and cooling system types
and building type. For some building types, especially those that tend to participate in the Site
Specific program, the RTF's interactive factors are higher than Avista's factor.
Sfatus: We are in the process of changing our interactive effect values for both
prescriptive lighting and site specific lighting. The RTF updated values in March 2016
and those will be reflected in our documents by November 1,2016. As of March 17,
2017,hhe above described status update has been carried out.
Recommendation: While the impact from the CommercialWindows and lnsulation measures
under the Site Specific program are minimal, Avista should further review its algorithm for
cooling season savings achieved by window replacements. The algorithm that Avista currently
uses may be overstating the impacts of these replacements on air condition energy
consumption.
Sfatus: We changed the cooling impact to match the evaluation team's estimates.
Conclusion: The Site Specific program constitutes more than 80% of the program natural gas
energy shares. Within the last 2 years, Avista has increased their level of quality assurance and
review on projects that participate through the program. The evaluation team's analysis resulted
in an 86% realization rate for the Site Specific program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista incentivize more of the larger,
high impact natural gas projects under its 'performance path' processes. Natural gas projects
are more often suited to performance verification via utility billing analysis than their electric
counterparts because fewer building end uses are served by natural gas. lncentivizing projects
based on proven performance would mitigate the inherent uncertainty in savings estimates
generated prior to project installation and improve Avista's realization rate for this program.
Sfafus: While we understand that performance measurement will make for better
realization rates, we are unsure of the impact on savings making customers wait 6-15
months for payment would cause. Because of this, we will wait for the 2016 impact
reports to make a decision on performance measurement of the natural gas projects.
4.2.1.2 Prescriptive Lighting Program
Conclusion: The Prescriptive Lighting program is the second largest program in Avista's
nonresidential portfolio, constituting more lhan20% of the energy savings. The evaluation
team's analysis resulted in a 99% realization rate for the Prescriptive Lighting program,
indicating that Avista's reported energy savings for this program are accurate.
64 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsru
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate this
program with the current level of rigor. Avista should consider applying the interactive factors
deemed by the RTF to quantify the interactive effects between interior lighting retrofits and their
associated HVAC systems. More specifically, for interior lighting projects, Avista assumes a
standard interactive factor of 7 .7% for buildings with air conditioning. The RTF's values for
interactive factors vary depending on heating and cooling system types and building type. For
some building types, especially those that tend to participate in the Site Specific program, the
RTF's interactive factors are higher than Avista's factor.
Sfafus: See response above in 4.2.1.1
4.2.1.3 Natural Gas Prescriptive Programs
Conclusion:Avista reported participation in four prescriptive natural gas programs in 2014-
2015: Food Service Equipment, Commercial Windows & lnsulation, Natural Gas HVAC, and
Commercial Water Heaters. Strong realizations rates for each of these programs indicate that
the Avista's deemed savings estimates for these measures are accurate and appropriate.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista continue to operate these
programs with the current level of rigor.
Sfafus: We appreciate the evaluation and we will continue the programs in the same
manner we currently operate them.
4.2.'1.4 EnergySmart Grocer Program
Conclusion: Avista's EnergySmart Grocer program is successfully providing retail and
restaurant customers with an avenue to upgrade their refrigeration equipment. Participation in
the program includes both prescriptive and custom projects. The evaluation team's review of
projects in the program resulted in a realization rate of 90%. For prescriptive projects, the
evaluation team determined that RTF deemed savings values were being appropriately applied
in most cases. However, low project-level realization rates for custom projects, which tend to be
larger in size than prescriptive projects, are driving the program realization rate downward.
Recommendation: Avista should consider more internal review of energy savings estimates
submitted by vendors for custom projects under this program. Alternatively, Avista could
consider tracking custom projects under the Site Specific program with other projects of similar
size and complexity.
Status: ln 2016, we began treating EnergySmart Grocer Site Specific measures the
same way we treat our own.
65 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvrsra
4.2.1.5 Electric Prescriptive Non-Lighting Other Programs
Conclusion: Avista reported 2014-2015 participation in six other prescriptive programs. Of
these, the HVAC Motor Controls program is the largest, constituting65% of the energy savings
for this group. The evaluation team's review of projects in these programs resulted in a 54o/o
realization rate. Cases of ineligible VFD projects receiving incentives were cause of the low
realization rate for these programs.
Recommendation: Avista should revise the HVAC Motor Controls program to include more
verification of motor eligibility status. More emphasis should be placed on confirming motor
application and duty status to ensure compliance with the program's existing eligibility
requirements. More specifically, Avista should place specific emphasis on ensuring VFDs are
installed in a manner that saves energy (i.e. not just as "soft starters") and that incentivized
VFDs serve primary-duty motors.
Sfatus: To address this issue the VFD incentive application now includes two additional
check boxes stating "VFD is for control and not for a soft start" and "There are not 2
VFD's on the same fluid flow system."
4.2.1.6 Small Business Program
Conclusion: Reported savings for faucet aerators were found to be conservatively low based
upon the evaluation team's secondary research. The realization rates for faucet aerators were
1260/o for electric savings and 204% for natural gas savings.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that the modified deemed savings values utilized by the
evaluation team be adopted by the program for future reporting purposes.
Status: The modified deemed savings values have been updated and are included in
the 2017 business plan.
Gonclusion: The reported deemed savings value for pre-rinse spray valves associated with
electric water heat was found to be slightly higher than the average determined through
secondary research. The program is currently using a reported electric energy savings value of
1,338 k\ryh. The average saving values recommended by the evaluation team is approximately
1,229 k\ryh.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that the electric deemed savings value reported by the
evaluation team for the pre-rinse spray valve measure be utilized for future reporting purposes
No modifications are recommended for the deemed therm savings value currently being used
by the program.
56 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvtsta
Status: We have adjusted our average savings values
Conclusion: Reported savings for faucet aerators were found to be conservatively low based
upon our secondary research. The realization rate for faucet aerators was 204o/o for natural gas
savings.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that the modified deemed savings values utilized by the
evaluation team in our adjusted savings analysis be adopted by the program for future reporting
purposes.
Stafus: See response above in 4.2.1.6
4.2.2 Residential Programs
The following subsections outline key conclusions and recommendations for several of the
residential programs.
4.2.2.1 Appliance Recycling
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that the reported deemed savings value (per recycled
unit) for the program was lower than estimated gross savings valued from prior studies. Avista
may have aligned their deemed savings values close to the RTF deemed savings values, but it
is important to understand that the RTF is reporting a value that accounts for net market effects
(i.e. free ridership).
Recommendation: lf Avista choses to offer an appliance recycling program in the future, it is
recommended that a clear distinction between gross and net savings values is noted if Avista
reports the most current RTF values.
Sfatus: Avista discontinued its appliance recycling program in the middle of 2015 and is
not planning on offering this program due to newer refrigerator and freezer vintages
having greatly reduced savings.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found discrepancies when comparing Avista's reported
participation counts against the implementer reported values. The evaluation team believes that
one reason for the discrepancies could be due to overlapping reporting periods and the way
participants are reported and tracked.
Recommendation: Avista should consider tracking the customer account number in addition to
the name/address. lt would be easier to track account numbers back to billing database records
than the name /address fields, which are easier misspelled, and often formatted differently.
67 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEsrsra
Stafus: See response above in 4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2 HVAG Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found, through billing regression analysis, a relatively low
realization rate for the Air Source Heat Pump measures (RR of 48.5%).
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista reexamine the assumptions
relating to annual per-home consumption and savings estimates in homes receiving ASHP
installations. ln addition, to help better understand the baseline for the ASHP replacement,
Avista could consider requesting that contractors and customers provide a better description of
the replaced unit.
Sfafus: Avista had been using a figure from a previous evaluation and has since
updated the value to match the RTF UES, which is more in line with the evaluated
results. As a result, high efficiency ASHPs were not cost-effective for 2016 and were
discontinued. Customers may switch from electric straight resistance to either natural
gas or an ASHP, but the stand alone new or replacement HE ASHP is no longer
available.
Conclusion: For the analysis of the Smart Thermostat measure, only five homes had sufficient
post-retrofit billing data to estimate electric savings. Therefore, the evaluation team applied a
100o/o realization rate to the reported savings due to the small population.
Recommendation: Given the inconclusive analysis results for this measure driven by data
limitations, the evaluation team recommends Avista revisit the analysis of this measure in late
2016 - early 2017 when a full year of post-installation billing data is available for several
hundred rebate recipients.
Sfafus: We are revisiting this with the 2016 data
Conclusion: During the desk review process, the evaluation team found that the installed
efficiency for the majority of the furnace replacements was higher than the program minimum-
required efficiency level, which resulted in a greater than 100oh realization rate. The evaluation
team was unable to determine a conclusive value for the baseline efficiency of the replaced
furnaces based on project documentation review and the participant surveys.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista conduct a more in-depth
study in order to better understand the baseline for the furnace replacement measure.
Stafus: We believe that it is best to simply change our savings numbers to 100% to
match what is taking place in the field.
68 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsts
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a realization o'185% for the Smart Thermostat
measure for gas savings. The findings are based on the analysis of 34 homes, which resulted
in a wide margin of error in the results.
Recommendation: Given that the realization rate relatively close to 100% with a wide margin of
error, the evaluation team does not recommend any changes to Avista's default savings
assumption of 41 therms per device. The evaluation team recommends Avista revisit the smart
thermostat analysis in 2017 once several hundred participants have a full year of post-
installation billing data available and the billing analysis is capable of producing a more precise
estimate.
Stafus: We will revisit this with the 2016 data.
Recommendation: Avista currently rebates smart thermostats from multiple vendors. Nest,
Honeywell, and Ecobee are the primary vendors in this space and represented the majority of
rebates in 2014-2015. One recent study in the Pacific Northwest3o have found different levels of
savings between thermostat vendors so Avista may want to consider segmenting subsequent
analyses by product or even limiting the products that qualifo for rebates.
Sfafus: We willwait until additional studies are available.
4.2.2.3 Water Heat
Conclusion: For showerheads distributed through the Simple Steps program, Avista allocates
50% of its reported savings to electric savings and 50% to natural gas savings to account for
homes that have different water heating fuel types.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista update this allocation assumption
to be based on representative water heater fuel type saturation. These data are available
through the Regional Building Stock Assessment study; however, we recommend Avista base
the allocation on data specific to its territory.
Sfafus: Avista has decided to continue to utilize the RTF figure for any water heating
retail showerheads, which is nearly a 50/50 split.
Conclusion: Currently Avista is providing incentives for both tankless and storage gas water
heaters at the federal minimum efficiency level. lt is recommended that Avista set a higher EF
as a program qualification.
Recommendation: lt is recommended that Avista revisit program requirements for water
heaters to ensure that incentives are based on efficiency levels that are greater than the federal
minimum.
30 http://assets.energytrust.org/api/assets/reports/Smart-Thermostat-Pilot-Evaluation-Final-wSR.pdf
69 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Stafus: There are significant savings to tankless gas water heaters (compared to
storage models) and we have eliminated incentives for storage gas water heaters.
4.2.2.4 ENERGY STAR@ Homes
Conclusion: The evaluation team initially attempted to use a difference-in-means approach to
estimate savings for the ENERGY STAR@ Homes program. However, due to the small number
of ENERGY STAR@ Homes participants and absent any detailed characteristics of the homes
(e.9. square footage, single- vs. multi-family, etc.) a reliable non-program comparison group
could not be attained. Therefore, the evaluation team collected Home Energy Rating System
(HERS) lndex scores for participating ENERGY STAR@ Homes wherever available to conduct
the impact analysis.
Recommendation: As more participants enter the program, the evaluation team recommends
again attempting a difference-in-means approach to estimating the savings for the program, if
sufficient data is available.
Status: The ENERGY STAR Homes program leverages regional savings estimates, but
Avista agrees with Nexant's approach to change their evaluation.
Recommendation: To aid future evaluation efforts, the evaluation team recommends including
the HERS scores in the program tracking documents. ln addition, for stick-built ENERGY STAR
homes, application forms could ask for the RESNET Registry lD, which is now assigned as part
of RESNET Archival of all HERS Rated or ENERGY STAR homes. This will ensure that the
home has been certified third party and is recognized by RESNET, the certifoing agency for
ENERGY STAR.
Status: This is a regional program effort and there are additional data points available
that we could provide access to.
4.2.2.5 Fuel Efficiency
Conclusion: The evaluation team conducted a billing regression analysis for the Fuel Efficiency
participants and found realization rates of 60-70% for rebate projects that included the
conversion of a home's heating system from electricity to natural gas. When regression
coefficients were examined in detail, the evaluation team noted that the estimated reduction in
electric heating load was being offset by an increase in estimated base load within participating
homes.
Recommendation: Because the rebate amounts and per-home savings from Fuel Efficiency
are so large and the number of participants is relatively low, the evaluation team recommends
Avista ask participating customers for details on any additional home renovations that were
70 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEwsra
completed in parallelwith the fuel conversion. Home improvement projects such as an addition,
finishing a basement, or adding air conditioning can drastically change the consumption
patterns within a home and render the assumed baseline inaccurate.
Status: Avista concurs with the findings and has chosen to utilize the newly evaluated
fuel efficiency numbers for future program design. lnterestingly, a previous impact
analysis found higher realization rates that resulted in the lock UES used most recently
The impact analysis aligns with anecdotal feedback from customers that the higher
incentive is helping reach customers with less usage and shortening their payback to
successfully encourage them to convert.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that over half the homes receiving Fuel Efficiency
rebates in 2014-2015 did not have a gas billing history with Avista prior to the conversion. These
homes realized savings at a higher rate than homes that did have previous gas service.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista consider adding a field to the
program tracking database that indicates the gas meter installation date or service start date of
participating homes. This would more clearly delineate homes that were previously all electric
and became dual-fuel around the same time as the Fuel Efficiency project, from homes that had
been dual-fuel historically. Avista may also want to consider assuming a more conservative
electric savings estimate for homes that had prior gas service because it's possible that the
home was not 100% electrically heated prior to program participation.
Status: While the database may not be able to track the additional data points, Avista
will look for opportunities to track and/or communicate greater detail for evaluation.
Avista has chosen to utilize the newly evaluated fuel efficiency number for future
program design.
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that almost half of all (lD and WA) Fuel Efficiency
participants also received rebates for the installation of high efficiency natural gas equipment.
This trend was limited to Washington as ldaho does not have rebates for high efficiency natural
gas furnaces and water heaters.
Recommendation: Separating the upgrade of a home's heating system from electric resistance
heat to a high efficiency natural gas furnace creates some accounting challenges that Avista
way want to streamline in the future. The fuel conversion measure assumes the home installs a
standard efficiency natural gas furnace and savings are calculated accordingly. The high
efflciency furnace measure offered through Avista's HVAC program uses a standard efficiency
furnace as the baseline and the installed high efficiency furnace as the efficient case. This
creates challenges for analysis of energy savings because the standard efficiency furnace never
existed in over half of Washington homes. A possible solution would be to require that homes
install a high efficiency furnace in order to receive a Fuel Efficiency rebate and consider the
71 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvtsra
upgrade a single transaction rather than two. Specifically, instead of claiming a 500 therm
penalty for the Fuel Efficiency measure and 100 therms of savings from the high efficiency
furnace measure, Avista could claim the electric savings and a 400 therm penalty for an electric
-> HE furnace measure.
Sfafus: Combining these would create regulatory accounting issues as the conversion
incentive is an electric tariff and the high efficiency furnace is a natural gas tariff. The
issue is the natural gas interactive effects of the conversion is an electric portfolio cost
not a natural gas portfolio issue.
4.2.2.6 Residential Lighting
Conclusion: Avista's deemed savings estimates, which were generally the same for all similar
product types and not correlated to the bulb wattage, understated the savings found by the
evaluation team. This was especially the case for Avista's CFL giveaway program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista consider more detailed
product type deemed values in an effort to be more closely aligned with the actual participating
lamps. Simple Steps has shifted its program tracking to specific product types by lumen bins in
accordance with the most current BPA UES measure list. Avista should consider using these
higher resolution deemed value for internal reporting with the Simple Steps program and for use
with internal residential lighting programs.
Sfafus: Avista will shift its Simple Steps tracking to align with the most recent RTF UES
4.2.2.7 Shell Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a low realization rate (38%) for shell rebate measures
(windows and insulation). This findings indicates that reported savings values were too
aggressive on average. The evaluation team compared the end-use shares estimated via
regression analysis and found that only approximately 5,500 of the 13,000 kWh of average
annual consumption in residential homes in Avista's service territory was assigned to heating
and cooling load. Given this end-use share, the reported savings values claimed by Avista
equate lo a 25o/o reduction in HVAC loads.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista examine planning assumptions
about per-home consumption, end-use load shares, and percent reductions in heating and
cooling loads from shell improvements. lt may be that the percent reduction assumptions are
sound, but they are being applied to an overstated assumption of the average electric HVAC
consumption per home. Conversely, the assumed end-use shares may be accurate, but the
end-use reduction percentage is inflated. This investigation should be conducted separately for
electrically heated homes and dual fuel homes as the heating electric end-use share will be
72 lD 20'16 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
different.
Stafus: Avista had been using older RTF numbers that corresponded to the time of the
Conservation PotentialAssessment. The current business plan is utilizing the most
recent RTF numbers.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista look at any recent saturation
studies or end-use load research findings to see if there is a general shift in base load gas use
that could potentially harm the savings from the Shell improvements when analyzed at the
whole house level.
Sfafus: We will be using the RTFs SEEM values for estimating home loads.
4.2.2.8 Opower Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found that savings held fairly consistent during the 6 month
interruption in Home Energy Report delivery. The finding reinforces Avista's decision to assume
a multi-year measure life when calculating the costeffectiveness of the Opower program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends Avista examine the program delivery
model in the 2016-2017 cycle. Given the fixed and volumetric nature of program costs, measure
life assumptions, and mechanisms by which measured savings are counted toward goal
achievement the evaluation team believes there are alternatives to the traditional delivery model
that optimize program achievements relative to costs.
Status: Avista will continue to utilize the same design for the 2016-2017 Home Energy
Reports program, but will be looking at all options of Behavioral Program designs for
2018-2019.
4.2.2.9 Low lncome Program
Conclusion: The evaluation team found a high realization rate for the fuel conversion measures
implemented through the Low lncome program. One reason for the high RR could be due to the
fact that Avista caps the reported savings value to 20% of the contractor estimated savings. ln
addition, the evaluation team found that the verified savings for these fuel conversion measures
aligned closely with the verified savings found through the regular-income
Fuel Conversion program.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends re-evaluating the current savings cap for
fuel conversion projects. ln addition, we recommend that Avista align assumptions for fuel
switching savings for the Low lncome and Fuel Efficiency programs.
Sfatus: Avista is re-evaluating the cap for low income savings claim. Based on past
73 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
impact analysis savings were capped al20% of the home. There should be a distinction
between a cap for weatherization and conversions where savings could exceed 20%.
Conclusion: The verified savings for the gas conservation homes was very consistent with
Avista's reported savings with a realization rate of 101%. Similar to the electric low-income fuel
conversion findings, it appears that Avista's reported estimates of gas penalties from fuel
conversion are understated, with the realization rate for the fuel conversion participants at over
400o/o. Although this result led to a significant adjustment in the low-income program, it is
important to note that the verified savings results are similar to Avista's reported gas penalty in
the Fuel Efficiency program on a per-home basis.
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that Avista align assumptions for fuel
switching penalty savings for the Low lncome and Fuel Efficiency programs.
Stafus: We are no longer capping conversion savings estimates.
74 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEwsra
5 Generation and Distribution Efficiency
5.1 Generation
Avista completed a facility wide LED lighting retrofit at its Cabinet Gorge Hydro Electric Facility
in 2016. The electrical system overall annual savings are 584 MWh of which 200 MWh are
attributed to ldaho.
5.2 Distribution
During 2016, Avista's LED Change-Out Program successfully converted 8,096 High-Pressure
Sodium (HPS) streetlights to Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, resulting in an energy
savings of 1.99 MWh in ldaho.
Avista manages streetlights for many local and state government entities to provide street,
sidewalk, and/or highway illumination for their streets by installing overhead streetlights. The
primary driver for converting overhead streetlights from HPS lights to LED lights is the
significant improvement in energy savings, lighting quality to customers, and resource cost
savings. ln all, the five year program will change out over 28,000 streetlights by end o't2019.
75 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Gost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFutsta,
6 Regional Market Transformation
Avista's local energy efficiency portfolio consists of programs and supporting infrastructure
designed to enhance and accelerate the saturation of energy efficiency measures through a
combination of financial incentives, technicalassistance, program outreach and education. lt is
not feasible for Avista to independently have a meaningful impact upon regional or national
markets.
Consequently, utilities within the northwest have cooperatively worked together through the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) to address those opportunities that are beyond the
ability or reach of individual utilities. Avista has been participating in and funding NEEA since
the '1997 founding of the organization.
Table 7-1 show the NEEA forecast savings vs. actual savings and the associated costs.
Table 7-1: NEEA Forecast vs Preliminary Actual Savings and Associated Gosts for
Avista
Electric $593,532
NaturalGas $87,686
6.1 Avista Electric Energy Savings Share
Allfigures provided represent the amounts that are allocated to Avista service territory, either
based on site-based energy savings data available or allocation of savings or spend based on
funding share. Funding share for Avista varies by funding cycle. The funding allocation for
Avista for 2016 is 4.03%.
NEEA is in process of finalizing the 2016 energy savings for all funders. The value provided
above for 2016 Draft Annual Report is a draft figure and may change slightly with the final report
that will be provided in May, 2017.
6.2 Avista Natural Gas Energy Savings Share
There is no forecast of Natural Gas energy savings in the short-term of NEEA's cycle (2015-
2019). NEEA's plan is focused on building the portfolio of initiatives that will deliver savings in
76 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4,065 MWh 5,449 MWh
nla nla
Energy Savings
2015 Draft-Final
Reported (as of
o3tut2a17l
Fuel Type Energy Savings
2016 Forecast
2016 Costs (as of
12t31t20161
AlEwsra
future years (anticipating 20'1 9+)
6.3 2016 Costs
NEEA annual costs do not map directly to the annual energy savings for a given year. Due to
the Market Transformation nature of NEEA's work, the energy savings investments are heavy
up front, and the return (in the form of energy savings) lags by a few years or more. For
instance, approximately 75o/o of the energy savings value delivered in 2016 are from initiatives
for which the investment period was 2010-2014. This investment period has a forecasted
energy stream that extends beyond 2019.
NEEA costs include all costs of NEEA operations and value delivery, including
. Energy savings initiatives
. lnvestments in market training and infrastructure
. Stock assessments, evaluations, data collection, and other regional and program
research
. Emerging technology research and development, and
. All administrative costs
Avista's criteria for funding NEEA's electric market transformation portfolio calls for the portfolio
to deliver incrementally cost-effective resources beyond what could be acquired through the
Company's local portfolio alone. Avista has historically communicated with NEEA the
importance of NEEA delivering cost-effective resources to our service territory. The Company
believes that NEEA will continue to offer cost-effective electric market transformation in the
foreseeable future. Avista will continue to play an active role in the organizational oversight of
NEEA. This will be critical to insure that geographic equity, cost-effectiveness and resource
acquisition continue to be primary areas of focus.
77 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFvrsra
7 Energy Efficiency Expenditures
During 2016, Avista incurred over $12.7 million in costs forthe operation of electric and natural
gas energy efficiency programs in ldaho, with $11.7 million for electric energy efflciency and
$1 .0 million for natural gas energy efficiency. Of this amount, $681 ,159 was contributed to the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance to fund regional market transformation ventures.
Seventy four percent of expenditures were returned to ratepayers in the form of incentives or
products (e.9. CFLs). During the 2016 calendar year, $258 thousand, or 2.0 percent, was spent
on evaluation in an effort to continually improve program design, delivery and cost-
effectiveness.
Evaluation, as well as other implementation expenditures, can be directly charged to the
appropriate state and/or segment(s). ln cases where the work benefits multiple states or
segments, these expenditures are charged to a "general" category and are allocated based on
avoided costs for cost- effectiveness purposes.
The expenditures illustrated in the following tables represent actual payments incurred in the
2016 calendar year and often differ from the cost-effectiveness section where all benefits and
costs associated with projects completing in 2016 are evaluated in order to provide matching of
benefits and expenditures resulting in a more accurate look at cost-effectiveness.
Table 7-1 and
Table 7-2 provide a summary of energy efficiency expenditures by fuel type.
Table 7-1: Avista Electricity Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD).
Segment NEEA TotalIncentives llmplementationi EM&V
Residential $2,331,713 $615,504 $0 $0 $2,947,216
Low lncome $822,74231 $58,563 $o $0 $881,306
Nonresidential $19 $0 $6,109,232
Regional $622,538
31 * Year-end accrual reversals for low income incentives for Washington and ldaho electric did not occur
correctly, but the tariff rider balances for both are correct as of the end of January 2016. The expenditure
charts (above) match the financial accounting system, but for accuracy in the cost effectiveness tests, an
adjustment of $273,052.57 in low income incentive expenditures has been made resulting in an increase
in Washington electric low income expenditures and a decrease in ldaho electric low income
expenditures.
$5,471,309 $637,904
$0 $902 $28,162 $593,473
^1'Evtsta
78 lD 2016 DSM Annua! Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
General $0 $731,355 $202,884 $0 $934,239
Research $0 $249,193 $0 $0 $249,1 93
Total $11,743,724
Table 7-2: Avista Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Expenditures (lD)
Residential $486,100 $29,540 $0 $0 $s15,640
Low lncome $205,160 $3,476 $0 $0 $208,636
Nonresidential $76,358 $51,497 $0 $0 $127,825
Regional $0 $91,743
General $0 $62,s44 $22,839 $0 $85,383
Total $1,029,227
$8,625,764 $2,293,421 $231,065 $563,473
NEEA TotalSegment ;lncentives llmplementationl EM&V
$0 $4,058 $87,686
$147,057 $87,686$26,897
AFvtsra
79 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
$767,588
8 Tariff Rider Balances
As of the start of 2016, the ldaho electric and natural gas (aggregate) tariff rider balances were
underfunded by $492,552. During 2016, $7 .2 million in tariff rider revenue was collected to fund
energy efficiency while $12.7 million was expended to operate energy efficiency programs. The
$5.5 million under-collection of tariff rider funding resulted in a year-end balance of $6 million
underfunded balance.
Table 8-1 illustrates the 2016 tariff rider activity by fuel type.
Table 8-1 Tariff Rider Activity (2016)
Beginning ($431,784)($60,768)(Underfunded)
Energy Efficiency Funding $6,229,357 $1,013,083
Net Funding of Operations $5,797,573 $952,315
Energy Efficiency Expenditures $11,743,724 $1,029,227
Ending Balances
(Underfunded)($5,946,150)($76,913)
Electric NaturalGas
80 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AEvrsra
I Actual to Business Plan Gomparison
For 2016 operations, Avista exceeded budgeted electric energy efficiency expenditures by $5.8
million, or 200 percent, and natural gas expenditures were less than budgeted by $214,773, or
eightythree percent. The biggest driver of expenditures is incentives. This demand for
incentives was slightly higher than anticipated and its impact resulted in the underfunding in the
ldaho electric programs. The ldaho Natural Gas Portfolio incentives exceeded budget, however
non-incentive costs were lower than planned resulting in excess overall.
While the business plan provides an expectation for operational planning, Avista is required to
incent all energy efficiency that qualifies under Schedules 90 and 190. Since customer
incentives are the largest component of expenditures, customer demand can easily impact the
funding level of the Tariff Riders.
Table 9-1 provides detail on the budget to actual comparison of energy efficiency expenditures
by fuel type.
Table 9-1 Business Plan to Actual Comparison32
Business PIan
lncentives Budget $3,112,957 $690,000
Non-incentives and Labor $554,000
Total Budgeted Expenditures $5,881,389 $1,244,000
Actual 2016 Expenditures
lncentives $8,625,764 $767,588
Non-incentives and Labor $3,117,960 $261,640
Total Actual Expenditures $11,743,724 $1,029,227
Variance (Unfavorable)$214,773
32 Budget values are from 2015 Business Plan
Electric NaturalGas
$2,768,432
($5,862,335)
AE-srsra'
81 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
10 Net Gost Effectiveness Results
This section reports the cost-effectiveness results with net to gross values, including
freeridership and spillover, as determined in the impact evaluations conducted on the 2014-
2015 programs.
10.1 Electric Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-l :2016lD Electric Utility Gost Test (UCT) (Net)
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular Income
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Costs $21,426,732 $323,220 52L,749,952
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,905,283 -s35,185 -$L,940,467
UCT Benefits $19,521 ,449 s288,035 s19,809,484
Non-tncentiue Utitity Costs $4,562,697 S5g,5G3 S4,G21,260
tncentive Costs $5,422,758 5549,690 55,972,447
UCT Costs $9,985,454 Sooa,zsg 510,593,707
1.95 o.47UCT Ratio
Net UCT Benefits
7.87
$9,535,995 -5320,2t8 59,2L5,111
Table 10-2: 2016 !D Electric Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Costs $21,426,732 5323,220 s2L,749,952
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,905,283 -S3s,t8s
Non-Energy Benefits $408,795 S14g,gg1 ,, 5557,676
TRC Benefits $19,930,244 S436,916 520,367,L6o
7
$12,050,922 Ss 775
82
TRC Costs
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
s 67 697
Non-tncentive Utitity Costs $4,562,697 55g,563 S4,621,2G0
Customer Costs $7,488,226 545g,2L2 57,946,437
AHvrcra
TRC Ratio 1.65 0.8s L.52
Residual TRC Benefits $t 799 463$7,979,322 -S79,859
AEttsra
83 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Table 10-1 :2016 !D Electric Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $31,969,850
Gas Bill Reduction -$75,210 -Sr,szs -577,083
ruon-energy aenefits $408,795 S14g,gg1 5557,676
participant Benefits $32,303,435 SSgZ,eSg 532,996,103
Customer Costs $11,466,759 5459,2L2 S11,9 7t
lncentive Received -$8,049,315 -Ss+9,690 -sg,5gg,oo5
Participant Costs $3,417,444 -59t,q18 s3,325,965
9.45 N/AParticipant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
9.89
$28,885,991 5674,t46 s29,550,137
Table 10-2: 2016!D Electric Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $21,426,732 5323,220 52t,749,952
Non-Participant Benefits
Electric Revenue Loss
$21,426,732
$31,969,850
Sez Sz 7220
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs
Customer lncentives
$1,936,979 63 s
$8,049,315 S549,690 S8,599,005
Non-Participant Costs $41,956,144 s t4 S43,ooo,o58
RIM Ratio 0.51 0.31 0.51
Net RIM Benefits -$20,529,412
84 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
s435,661 s32,405,51.0
s435,651 s32,405,510
::, -$720,694 -521,,2s0,106
AEvrsra
10.zNatural Gas Cost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-5: 20161D Natural Gas Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $531,707 Szs,qla Sssz,tgg
Naturat Gas Avoided Costs $105,805 SO S105,g05
UCT Benefits $637,512 s25,476 S6G2,988
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,+16 Sg+,stE
lncentive Costs $270,217 S205,160 5475,311
UCT Costs $351,254 s208,636 Sssg,ggo
UGT Ratio t.8t o.L2 1.18
Net UCT Benefits S103,098
Table 10-6: 2016 lD NaturalGas Total Resource Gost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $531,707 S25,ql6 Sssz,tga
Natural Gas Avoided Costs $105,805 So s105,805
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 s59,959 s59,795
TRC Benefits $637,338 S95,++5 5732,783
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 76 3
Customer Costs $1 ,1 52,834 s183,794 s1,336,529
TRC Costs $1,233,871 187 70 L4L
TRC Ratio 0.52 0.51 0.52
Residual TRC Benefits -Sst,-S688,358
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
$286,258 -s183,150
I Regular lncomeI Portfolio
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
85 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-$596,533
^AFvtsta
Table 10-3: 20161D NaturalGas Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
i Regular lncomeI Portfolio
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $1 ,1s3,581 s55,308 s1,2og,ggg
Gas Bill Reduction $23,468 So 523,468
Non-Energy Benefits -$174 s69,959 s59,795
Participant Benefits $1,176,975 5t26,277 51,303,152
Customer Costs $2,359,560 5183,794 s2,543,353
lncentive Received
Participant Costs $1,799,714 -s21,355 51,778,347
Participant Ratio
Net Participant Benefits
0.65 A o.73
-5475,195
Table 10-4: 2016 lD NaturalGas Rate lmpact Measure (RIM) (Net)
-$622,839 5L47,643
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $531,707 s25,475 S557,183
Non-Participant Benefits $531,707 525,476 SSSZ,tag
Electric Revenue Loss $2,390,375 S5G,3o8 52,446,683
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $81,037 53,ql6 Sg+,st3
Customer lncentives $s59,846 S205,160 s765,006
Non-Participant Costs $3,031,259 5264,944 s3,296,202
RIM Ratio 0.18 0.10 0.77
Net RIM Benefits -5239,468 -s2,739,0L9
^AEwsta
86 lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
-$559,846 _szos,teo _s765,005
10.3Combined Fuel Gost Effectiveness Results
Table 10-9: 2016 lD Combined Fuel Utility Cost Test (UCT) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $21,532,537 5323,220 52L,855,757
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,373,576 -S9,709 -S1,383,285
UCT Benefits $20,158,961 s313,511 520,472,472
Non-l ncentive Utility Costs $4,643,734 So2,04o 54,705,773
lncentive Costs $5,692,974 5754,949 56,447,924
UCT Costs $10,336,708 Sgt6,gg9 511,153,597
UCT Ratio 1.95 0.38 1.84
Net UCT Benefits S9,318,875
Table {0-10: 2016!D Combined Fuel Total Resource Cost (TRC) (Net)
Electric Avoided Costs $21,532,537 5323,220 : 527,855,757
$9,822,253 -S503,378
Overall PortfolioLow lncome
Portfolio
Regular lncome
Portfolio
Natural Gas Avoided Costs -$1,373,s76 -s9,709 -s1,393,295
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 s218,850 56zl,qlt
TRC Benefits $20,567,582 Ss3z,get s21,099,943
Non-lncentive Utility Costs
Customer Costs
$4,643,734 773
$8,641,060 SG42,o05 S9,283,0G5
TRC Costs $13,284,794 839
TRC Ratio 1.55 0.76 1.51
Residual TRC Benefits -sL7L,684 s7,111,105
87 ID 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
S62,04o
\
Table 10-5: 20161D Combined Fuel Participant Cost (PCT) (Net)
I Reg,rlar lr."r"i Portfolio
Low lncome
Portfolio Overall Portfolio
Electric Bill Reduction $31,993,318 s435,661 s32,428,978
Gas Bill Reduction -$51,742 -S1,873 -Ssa,ots
Non-Energy Benefits $408,621 s218,850 56zt,qtt
Participant Benefits S708,945 534,L89,256
Customer Costs
lncentive Received
$13,826,319 s642,005 s 24
-$8,609,161 -SlSq,g+g -S9,364,0i.i.
Participant Costs $5,217,158 -5tt2,gqq S5,104,3i.4
Participant Ratio 6.42 A 6.70
Net Participant Benefits s2s
Table 106: 20161D Combined Fuel Rate lmpact Measure (RlM) (Net)
942$28,263,152 Sgzt,lgo
Overall PortfolioPortfolio
Regular lncome Low lncome
Portfolio
Electric Avoided Cost Savings $21,958,439 Sgqg,sgs 522,301,t35
Non-Participant Benefits $21,959,439 Sg+g,ego 522,307,13s
Electric Revenue Loss $34,360,225 968 s34,952,193
Non-lncentive Utility Costs $2,018,016 SG2,04o S2,080,056
Customer tncentives $8,609,161 S754,g49 S9,3G4,011
Non-Participant Costs $44,987,403 Si.,308,857 946,296,260
RIM Ratio 0.49 0.27 0.48
Net RIM Benefits -$23,028,964 -S950,152 989 L25
2
lD 2016 DSM Annual Report & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
AFwsra
88
$33,480,310