20220712Application.pdf

A INIERMOI.'NHIN'
GAS COMPANY
Agt0f*d,!ottfrru &E,,tt,sAaO,fE
tntllc@mruntty roSotw'
: I l-'-
.' -'.' -'1 i : ;1i!1-,;,,i' .: -t qr:(r'r:
July 12,2022
Ms. Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise,lD 83720-0074
RE: Case No. INT-G-22-03
Dear Ms. Noriyuki
Attached for consideration by this Commission is an electronic submission of Intermountain Gas
Company's Application for a Determination of 2021Energy Efficiency Expenses as Prudently
Incurred, including the202l Energy Efficiency Annual Report and Supplement.
If you should have any questions regarding the attached, please don't hesitate to contact me at (208)
377-6015.
Sincerely,
fln'LBLM
Lori A. Blattner
Director, Regulatory Affairs
lntermountain Gas Company
Enclosure
Mark Chiles
Preston Carter
cc:
INTERMOTINTAIN GAS COMPANY
CASE NO.INT{,.22.03
APPLICATION
AI\D
EXHIBITS
In the Matter of the Application of INfERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPAI\IY
For a Determination of 2021Enerry Efliciency Expenses as Pmdently Incurred
Preston N. Carter, ISB No. 8462
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise,Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Attorrcys for Intermountain Gas Comparry
In the Matter of the Application of
TNTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
for a Determination of 2021 Energy
Effrciency Expenses as Prudently
lncurred
BEFORE TI{E IDAHO PI.JBLTC UTILITTES COMMISSION
Case No. INT-C,-22-03
Appr,rclrrox
Intermountain Gas Company ('Intermountain" or'oCompany'), a subsidiary of MDU
Resources Group, tnc. with general offices located at 555 South Cole Road, Boise,Idaho, pursuant
to the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission"), l) submits its
2021 Energ Efficiency Annuol Report and 2) makes application to the Commission for an order
designating 54,U8]74 of 2021Energy Efficiency expenditures as prudently incurred.
Please address communications regarding this Application to:
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise,Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and
Lori A. Blatfrer
Director - Regulatory Affairs
Intermountain Gas Company
Post Office Box 7608
Boise,lD 83707
[e-mail]
Appt rcerou- 2
In support of this Application, Intermountain alleges and states as follows.
I.INTRODUCTION
Intermountain is a gas utility, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, engaged in the
sale of and distribution of natural gas within the State of Idaho under authority of Commission
Certificate No. 2 I 9, issued December 2, 1955, as amended and supplemented by Order No. 6564,
dated October 3,1962.
Intermountain provides natural gas service to the following ldaho communities and counties
and adjoining areas:
Ada County - Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kun4 Meridian, and Star;
Bannock County - Arimo, Chubbuck, Inkom, Lava Hot Springs, McCammon, and Pocatello;
Bear Lake County - Georgetown, and Montpelier;
Bingham County - Aberdeen, Basalg Blackfoot Firttr, Fort Hall, Moreland/Riverside, and Shelley;
Blaine County - Bellevue, Hailey, Ketchum, and Sun Valley;
Bonneville County - Ammon,Idaho Falls, Iona, and Ucon;
Canyon County - Caldwell, Greenleaf Middleton, N*pq Parma, and Wilder;
Caribou County - Bancroft, Grace, and Soda Springs;
Cassia County - Burley, Declo, Malta and Raft River;
Elmore County - Glenns Ferry, Hammett and Mountain Home;
Fremont County - Parker, and St. Anthony;
Gem County - Emmett;
Gooding County - Bliss, Gooding, and Wendell;
Jefferson County - Lewisville, Menan, Rigby, and Ririe;
Jerome County - Jerome;
Lincoln County - Shoshone;
Madison County - Rexburg, and Sugar City;
Minidoka County - Heybum, Paul, and Rupert;
Owyhee County - Bruneau, Marsing, and Homedale;
Payette County - Fruitland, New Plymouth, and Payette;
Power County - American Falls;
Twin Falls County - Buhl, Filer, Hansen, Kimberly, Murtaugh, and Twin Falls;
Washington County - Weiser.
Intermountain's properties in these locations consist of transmission pipelines, liquefied
natural gas storage facilities, compressor stations, dishibution mains, services, meters and
regulators, and general plant and equipment.
ApplrcauoN - 3
II. BACKGROTIND
In the Company's General Rate Case No. INT-G-16-02, lntermountain petitioned the
Commission for authority to begin a residential Energy Efficiency Program ("EE Program"). The
Commission granted the Company's request in Order No. 33757 and found that "DSM, as both a
least-cost resource and an important element of promoting energy efficiency, is an important part of
any utility's provision of service. As such, we look forward to seeing the Company's program
develop." Case No. INT-G- l 6-02, Order No . 337 57 at 37 .
Subsequently, in Case No. INT-G-17-03, the Company requested authority to implement
Rate Schedule EE - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, which outlined the program
offerings, and Rate Schedule EEC-RS - Energy Efliciency Charge, which established a charge to
fund the program. In Order No. 33888, the Commission approved both rate schedules effective
October 1,2017.
In Case No. INT-G-lg-D4,lntermountain requested that the Commission approve the
Company's 2017-2018 EE Program expenses as prudently incurred. In OrderNo.34536,the
Commission approved the prudency ofthe expenses with several conditions attached. Those
conditions were to commission a third-party Evaluation, Measurement and Verification ("EM&V")
study, review and update the avoided cost calculation with the Energy Efficiency Stakeholder
Committee ("EESC"), immediately and continuously monitor, evaluate, and update its EE Program
incentives with the best available data, and discontinue the 80% AFUE condensing fireplace
incentive.
To allow all interested customers to participate in the Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate
Program, and to continue to grow the Program, Intermountain requested authority to revise Rate
Appr-rcerroN - 4
Schedule EEC-RS ("EEC-RS") from $0.00367 to $0.02093 per therm in Case No. INT-G-19-05.
The Commission approved the requested revision in Order No. 34454, effective October 1,2019.
In Case No. NT-G-20-06,lntermountain requested that the Commission approve the
Company's 2019 EE Program expenses as prudently incurred. In Order No .34980, the Commission
approved the prudency of the expenses. The Company also requested significant changes to the
program based on its first ever EM&V study that was filed as part of the case. The Commission
approved the proposed modifications effective April 1,2021. The Commission also ordered the
Company to continue to review its avoided costs and update its avoided cost calculations based on
the review, and to immediately and continuously monitor, evaluate, and update its EE Program
incentives with the best available data.
In Case No. INT-G-21-03,Intermountain requested that the Commission approve the
Company's 2020E,E Program expenses as prudently incurred.In OrderNo.35313, the Commission
approved the prudency of the expenses. The Commission stated, "We commend the Company for
continuing to adjust its young EE Program to deliver cost effective energy savings to customers."
The Commission also ordered the Company to continuously monitor, evaluate and update its EE
Program incentives with the best available data using the most accurate evaluation method to do so.
The Commission acknowledged the overf.rnded rider balance of $1,318,197 and permitted the
Company to carry forward the balance to meet anticipated increased Program participation, with the
understanding the Company will seek adjustment if increased participation does not materialize.
During program year202l, the Company retired, modified, or added residential program
incentives as approved in OrderNo. 34980. The Residential EE Program was available to all
residential rate class customers in the Company's service territory.
Appr-rcerrou - 5
OrderNo. 34941in Case No. INT-G-20-04 authorized the Company to implement a
Commercial Energy Efficiency program in Rate Schedule EE-GS and established a funding
mechanism for program costs in Rate Schedule EEC-GS ("EEC-GS"). The Commission directed
the Company to develop an EM&V plan, file an Annual Commercial EE Program Report, include
representatives from the GS-l rate class in its EESC, and immediately and continuously monitor,
evaluate, and update its Commercial EE Program incentives with the best available data. The
Company launched its Commercial EE Program on April 1,2021, consisting of incentives for
commercial space heating and commercial kitchen equipment. The Commercial EE Program was
available to all GS-l Commercial rate class customers in the Company's service territory.
The Company's 2021 Energt Eficiency Annuol Report ("Annual Report") is included as
Attachment I to this Application and incorporated by reference. The Annual Report consists of the
main document and a supplement. The main report provides a review of the Company's EE
Portfolio, which consists of the Residential Program and the Commercial Program. The report
outlines finances, cost-effectiveness, and performance by measure for each Program. A review of
ouheach and educational activities, discussion of the Company's participation in a collaborative
effort to accelerate market intoduction of gas heat pump technologies, and future plans complete
the Annual Report. Annual Report at 3.
Supplement l:2021Cost-Effectiveness ("Supplement") to the Annual Report outlines the
cost-effectiveness for the EE Program and for each individual rebate offered. [t also includes a
proposed schedule to ensure formal EM&V for each rebate on a regular basis. This regular cycle of
EM&V will help to guarantee the cost-effectiveness of the EE Program going forward.
ApplrcauoN - 6
III. REVEI\IIES
The EE Program expenditures are funded through collections from customers via Energy
Efficiency Charges. The EEC-RS of $0.02093 per therm funds the Residential EE Program. Total
Residential EE Program revenues for calendar year 2021were $5,393,824. Annual Report at 6.
The EEC-GS of $0.00320 funds the Commercial EE Program. The revenue for the flrst nine
months of the Commercial program was $234,906. Annual Report at 20.
IV. EXPEI\DTTURES
Expenditures for the Residential and Commercial Programs combined for January 1,2021
through December 31,2021were $4,028,174. Of this amount, $3,301,552, or approximately 82%o,
is related to energy efficiency rebates paid directly to residential and commercial customers.
Residential rebates accounted for$3,287,716 and Commercial rebates accounted for $13,836.
Annual Report at6 and20.
In addition to the amount spent on energy efficiency rebates, the Company incurred
$726,622 of Portfolio level expenses, Residential and Commercial combined, for labor, program
delivery and market transformation. As a Portfolio, this was approximately l0% less than 2020
expenditures. The Company increased expenditures in program delivery and market transformation,
but did not incur any expenses for special studies such as CPA or EM&V. Labor expenses were
relatively flat with 2021 labor expenditures totaling $638,847, representing a slight decrease of
$3,540 when compared with 2020.
Expenditures were allocated between the Residential and Commercial program by an80120
split to calculate program level cost effectiveness. This allocation was based on program uptake
estimates from the 2019 CPA and is intended to divide costs reasonably in light of the newly
formed commercial program. Based on this allocation, Residential and Commercial labor expenses
ApplrcenoN - 7
were $5 | I ,077 and $127 ,770, respectively. Program delivery expenses are direct assigned to their
respective program, either Residential or Commercial, when they can be specifically identified.
After all direct costs are assigned, the remaining pool of program costs are split between the
Residential program and Commercial program, also based on the 80/20 ratio, with total program
delivery expenses totaling $79,064 for the residential program and $8,71 I for the commercial
program. Within each program, expenses are allocated to each rebate based on the rebate count as a
percentage of all rebates. Any cost incurred solely for a particular rebate is directly assigned to that
rebate. Because 2021was spent educating customers regarding the existence of the Commercial
Program, the Company will continue to monitor and evaluate whether a fixed ratio is an appropriate
method for allocating costs between the two programs.
Intermountain is committed to working to secure an energy efficient future. ln202l
lntermountain renewed its membership in the North American Natural Gas Heat Pump
Collaborative (Collaborative) to help advance the adoption of gas heat pump technology. With
efficiencies of over l00yo, gas heat pump technology promises to deliver significant efficiency
gains when compared to traditional heat and water heat technology. The Market Transformation
expense of $24,500 represents the Company's membership in the Collaborative. Intermountain
believes the continued investment in this collaborative effort will provide our customers with
significant energy savings and lower energy bills in the years to come. Annual Report at 28.
V. DEFERRAL BALAI\CE
The Residential Program began the year with an over-collected defenal balance of
$ I ,3 I 8,1 97. The mid-year program revision in the residential rebate offering caused some
unanticipated changes in rebate payment levels. The Whole Home new construction rebate was one
of the most redeemed rebates. This rebate was revised to a two-tiered rebate of $900 or $700, both
ApplrcenoN - 8
of which were lower than the previous $1,200 rebate amount. Not only did the lower rebate amount
impact rebate payment levels, but no $900 rebates have yet been paid due to the leaming curve
required to meet the higher energy performance targets of the $900 Tier I rebate. Because the Whole
Home new construction rebates are lower than the previous new consfuction rcbate, and because
most of the participation has been in the lowest tier rather than split more evenly between the two
rebates as anticipated by the Company, rebate payments athibuted to the new consfuction rebates
have been much lower than forecast. In addition, worldwide supply chain issues have delayed
project completion times and limited the availability of high-efficiency equipment resulting in
fewer rebates being issued lrl,2021than forecast. All of these issues resulted in growth of the over-
collected balance to $2,834,164 at December 31, 2021. Annual Report at 6. Because the balance
has continued to grow throughout 2022,the Company plans to refund a portion of the over-collected
balance to residential customers through its Purchased Gas Adjustnent filing, effective October l,
2022. Additionally, the Company plans to file a separate case to adjust the EEC-RS going forward
based on the best available forecast data.
The Commercial Program went into effect on April l, 2021. After nine months, the
Commercial rider balance was $84,589 over-collected at December 31,2021. As the Commercial
Program continues to gain awareness and participation with GS-l customers, the Company will
continue to monitor the rider balance to avoid over or under collection and file for adjustments as
necessary. Annual Report at 20.
YI. TIIERM SAVINGS
The202l prograrn year was one of evolution. Residential Program modifications were
implemented on April l,zl2l,which included retiring under-performing rebates, modiffing
existing rebates and adding new rebates to the offering. Rebates that were being retired or modified
Applrcerrou- 9
were effective January through March 31,2021. Rebates that were modified or added to the
Program offering were effective April 1,2021. The Residential Program achieved 776,887 therm
savings in202l. Annual Report at7. In 2021 Intermountain paid out 5,553 rebates to customers,
which represented a22Yo increase over the previous year. The fumace rebate and new construction
rebate were again the two most redeemed rebates, followed by smart thermostats which where were
added to the EE Program in April.
The new Commercial EE Program consists of three incentives for space heating and three
commercial cooking equipment incentives. In its nine months of existence, the Commercial
Program achieved 8,603 therm savings. Annual Report at 21. There were four high-efficiency
condensing boiler rebates redeemed as well as four fryers, two commercial kitchen steamers and six
commercial energy savings kits.
The Company is encouraged by the continued growth of the EE Program, and looks forward
to working with customers, the Commission, and other stakeholders to maximize participation in
and the cost-effectiveness of the EE Program going forward.
YII. AVOIDED COSTS
In Case No. INT-G-19-04, Order No. 34536, the Commission directed "the Company and
its Energy Advisory Group to review the Company's avoided cost calculations concurrently with
the EM&V study."
Through a series of meetings l.rl.zDz0,lntermountain and its Avoided Cost Subcommittee
("subcommittee") agreed upon a method for calculating avoided commodity and transportation
costs but was unable to finalize a method to account for avoided distribution costs.
In Case No. INT-G-20-06, OrderNo.34980, the Commission directed the Company to
"continue to review avoided costs and update its avoided cost calculations based on the review."
Applrcerroll- l0
Accordingly, the Company reconvened the Avoided Cost subcommittee on March 9,2022
following the filing of the Company's 2021Integrated Resource Plan ("[RP"), to finalize a method
to account for avoided distribution costs. The Company presented to the group a distribution cost
model that incorporated IRP data and confidential 5-Year capital expenditure plan data to calculate
the present value of deferring infrastructure projects by way of demand reduction. The
Subcommittee expressed concerns with the restrictions that would result from using confidential
plan data within the model. Intermountain recognized these considerations and updated the model to
utilize publicly available historical expenditure data. The Company provided this updated model to
the Subcommittee on April 14,2022 and requested feedback. Comments received afterward
expressed uncertainty that historical expenditures can serve as a viable proxy for future costs.
Additionally, a proposal was made that the model should only consider costs for the set of large
projects identified in the IRP. Intermountain acknowledges these suggestions and believes the next
IRP cycle will be the best process for further review of the distribution cost component. For the
2021 Annual Report, and until a method for calculating avoided distibution costs is agreed upon by
the Subcommittee, the distibution cost component of the Avoided Cost will remain atzerc.
For this filing, the Company used the Avoided Costs as calculated in the IRP (see Case No.
INT-G-21-06, Exhibit No.5). The Company has reproduced these Avoided Costs as Exhibit No. l,
which is incorporated by reference. Additionally, the Subcommittee meeting minutes are included
in Exhibit No. 2 and incorporated by reference.
VItr. COST-EFFECTTVEI\IESS
Intermountain reports the cost-effectiveness of its EE Program based on two indus@
standard metrics: the Utility Cost Test ("UCT") and the Total Resource Cost ("TRC"). The UCT
measures cost-effectiveness from the utility company's perspective and takes into consideration
Appr-rcarroN - I I
avoided supply costs, program administration costs, and incentives paid by the utility. The TRC
measures cost-effectiveness from the customer's perspective and focuses on avoided supply costs,
program administration costs and net participant costs. Although both are common industry metrics
for measuring cost-effectiveness, the Company relies more on the UCT because it measures the
cost-effectiveness of items directly under the Company's control.
The avoided costs, as outlined in Exhibit No. l, have been used in all cost-effectiveness tests
included as part of the Annual Report.
D(. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee has been a valuable resource for the
Company as it builds the EE Program. As outlined in the Annual Report, Intermountain hosted two
full EESC meetings to address both the Residential and Commercial Program. The meetings
included good representation from a variety of groups including representatives from the
Commission Staff, the Governor's Oflice of Energy and Mineral Resources, and a not-for-profit
residential home builder. Home energy raters representing both sides of the state attended. The
Company recruited both Commercial HVAC experts and representatives from a state-wide
commercial kitchen equipment supplier to participate on the EESC. In addition to commercial
indus@ experts, city and county representatives involved in energy efficiency and sustainability,
and familiar with both the residential and commercial sectors, also panicipated on the Committee.
Minutes from these two meetings are included in Exhibit No. 2.
X. MODIFIED PROCEDURE
Intermountain requests that this matter be handled under modified procedure pursuant to
Rules 201-204 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. Intermountain stands ready for immediate
consideration of this matter.
ApplrcauoN - l2
)il. REQUEST FOR RELTEF
lntermountain respectfully petitions the Idaho Public Utilities Commission as follows:
a. That the Commission issue an order designating V,028,174 of 2Al Energy Efficiency
expenditures as prudently incurred,
b. That this Application be heard and acted upon without hearing under modified procedure,
and
c. For such other relief as this Commission may determine just and proper.
DATED: July 12,2022
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY Givens Pursley LLP
By
Lori A. Blattner
Director - Regulatory Affairs
/ *----:-'-. 4=--n--_.
By
Preston N. Carter
Attorney for Intermountain Gas Company
dhLBLM
ApplrcarroN- 13
EXHIBIT NO. 1
CASE NO. INT-G-2243
INTERMOI]NTAIN GAS COMPANTY
Avoided CostModel
X'nom Caso No. INT-G.21-'06, Exhibit No 5
(12 pages)
6 INTERMOUNTAIN'
GAs COMPANY
A Subidiary of MDU Resources Group, lnc.
ln the Community to Serue'
lntermountain Gas Company
Avoided Cost Model
lntegrated Resource Plan 2021 - 2026
Exhibit No. 5
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Avoided Cost by Year
Line NominalCost
PerThermtll
Real Percent
Adjustmend2l
Real Cost
Per Therm
Present
Valuel3l
Avoided Cost
Per ThermlalNo.Year
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2020 $
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
20/,0
20/.1
20/.2
20/.3
20/.4
2045
2c/,6
20/.7
2048
20/.9
0.46
0.51
0.57
0.53
0.53
0.56
0.58
0.60
0.62
0.&+
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.72
0.75
0.77
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.86
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.99
1.01
1,M
'|..07
1.09
9.55%
8.57o/o
-7.67%
-2.270/o
3.260/o
1.420/o
1.65%
O.Mo/o
1.66%
1.610/o
-0.140/o
0.53%
2.400/o
1.080/o
1.27o/o
1.42o/o
-0.340/o
0.48o/o
1.590/o
-0.620/o
0.51o/o
0.5'lo/o
0.51o/o
0.5'lo/o
0.520/o
0.52%
0.52%
0.52o/o
0.52%
0.46
0.50
0.55
0.50
0.49
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.62
0.44 $
0.90
1.37
1.79
2.18
2.57
2.94
3.31
3.66
4.00
4.33
4.U
4.94
5.24
5.52
5.80
6.06
6.32
6.56
6.80
7,03
7.24
7.45
7.65
7.U
8.02
8.20
8.37
8.53
8.69
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.s4
0.54
0.54
0.54
$$
NOTES
l'l See Page2, Column (e).
t2l The year over year percentage change in Column (b), adjusted by the inflation assumption on
Page 11, Line4, Column (b).
I3l The cumulative present value of Column (d) is calculated using the realdiscount rate on
Page 11, Line 5, Column (b).
tal Levelized avoided cost of Column (e) computed with the real discount rate on
Page 11, Line 5, Column (b).
,|
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Nominal Avoided Cost by Year
Line
No.Year
Commodity
g6slttltzl
Variable Distribution
Cosfl
Transportation
Costtal
Total
Costt5l
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1'l
't2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2020 $
202',1
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
20/.2
2043
2044
2045
20/i6
2047
2048
20/.9
0.25 $
0.30
0.35
0.31
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.45
0.47
0.49
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.70
0.72
0.21 $
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.46
0.51
0.57
0.53
0.53
0.56
0.58
0.60
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.72
0.75
0.77
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.86
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.99
1.01
'l.u
1.07
1.09
$
NOTES
t'l See Pages 3-9, Column (f). Nominalized then divided by 10 to convert units from dekatherms
to therms.
12! Annual growth after 2040 is tied to yearly percentage change of the prior period.
t3l Placeholder value of zero until a Variable Distribution Cost methodology is developed.
tol See Page 10, Line 8, Column (d). Annual growth is tied to inflation assumption
from Page 11, Line 4, Column (b).
tulsum of Columns (b)-(d).
2
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Gommodity Cost
Line Heating
Year Month
HDD
Weishtl2l
HDD
Factol3l
Commodity
Cost
Weighted Basin
Price ForecasttilNo.
(a)(b)
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2021
2021
2021
202',|.
2021
2021
2021
202'.1
2021
2021
2021
2021
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
2022
(c)(d)(0(e)
,l
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
10$
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.14
2.32
4.29
3.47
1.97
1.U
1.31
1.59f.il
1.51
1.72
2.39
2.46
3.03
3.17
3.31
2.76
2.96
2.44
2.58
2.75
3.04
3.24
3.08
3.07
3.3s
4.0'l
4.04
3.85
3.07
2.26
2.00
2.2s
2.52
2.59
2.60
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20%
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3%
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8%
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
'lo/o
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
16%
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0%
1%
0.07
0.19
0.68
0.69
0.31
0.22
0.14
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.01
$
$2.50
0.08
0.25
0.50
0.66
0.4
0.43
0.25
0.17
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.02 $2.94
0.10
0.27
0.04
0.80
0.61
0.45
0.23
0.13
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
NOTES
I'l Weighted average price forecast for AECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins
t2l Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normal weather year.
ttl Column (c) times Column (d).
3
3.37
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Gommodity Cost
Line Heating
YearNo.Month
Weighted Basin HDD
Price Forecasttll weightt2l
HDD
Factol3l
Commodity
Cost
(a)(b)
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
202s
2025
202s
(c)(d)(e)(0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7I
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
10$
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
10
11
12
,|
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
2.57
2.91
3.38
3.43
3.28
2.80
2.19
1.95
2.20
2.37
2.43
2.54
2.49
2.92
3.16
3.18
3.05
2.70
2.29
2.05
2.33
2.35
2.43
2.62
2.63
2.93
3.21
3.U
3.24
3.01
2.43
2.32
2.50
2.U
2.62
2.72
3%$
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3%
1o/o
Oo/o
1o/o
0.09
0.24
0.54
0.68
0.52
0.41
0.23
0.13
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.02 $2.95
3%
8%
160/o
20%
16%
15o/o
10%
7%
3%
1o/o
0o/o
1%
3%
8%
16%
20o/o
16%
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
0.08
0.24
0.50
0.63
0.49
0.39
o.24
0.'14
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.02 $2.83
0.09
0.24
0.51
0.66
0.52
0.44
0.25
0.1s
0.09
0.03
0,00
0.02 $
NOTES
lll Weighted average price forecast forAECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins.
I2l Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normal weather year.
l3l Column (c) times Column (d).
4
2.99
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commodity Gost
Line Heating
Year Month
HDD
Weiohtl2l
HDD
Factodsl
Commodity
Cost
Weighted Basin
Price ForecastlllNo.
(a)(e)(d)(b)(c)(0
,l
2
3
4
5
b
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
'17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2026
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2027
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
2028
10$
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
o
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1',|
12
,|
2
3
4
5
6
7
II
2.75
3.05
3.29
3.37
3.24
2.96
2.il
2.52
2.70
2.74
2.80
2.90
2.93
3.2',1
3.40
3.43
3.28
3.07
2.71
2.59
2.78
2.79
2.87
2.99
3.02
3.29
3.48
3.47
3.29
3.09
2.71
2.57
2.78
2.81
2.89
3.00
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1%
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
16%
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1%
0o/o
1o/o
0.09
0.25
0.52
0.67
0.52
0.43
0.27
0.17
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.26
0.54
0.68
0.52
0.45
0.28
0.17
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
3.07
3.15
$
0.10
0.27
0.55
0.69
0.52
0.45
0.28
0.'17
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
NOTES
l'l Weighted average price forecast for AECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins.
t2l Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normalweather year.
ttlColumn (c) times Column (d).
5
3.18
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commodity Cost
Line Heating
Year Month
HDD
Factol3l
Commodity
Cost
Weighted Basin HDD
PriceForecasttll Weightl2lNo.
(a)(b)(c)(0(e)(d)
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
I
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
'17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2029
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2030
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
2031
10$
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7I
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
o
7
I
I
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
o
3.03
3.31
3.50
3.62
3.42
3.18
2.79
2.69
2.86
2.88
2.98
3.07
3.11
3.40
3.58
3.68
3.52
3.26
2.88
2.79
2.95
3.01
3.10
3.18
3.21
3.48
3.66
3.04
3.48
3.22
2.U
2.73
2.90
2.95
3.05
3.13
3o/o
8o/o
'160/o
20o/o
160/o
'150/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
'160/o
20o/o
'|.60/o
15o/o
10o/o
7%
3%
1%
0o/o
1%
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20%
16%
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
0.10
0.27
0.56
0.72
0.54
0.46
0.29
0.18
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.28
0.57
0.73
0.56
0.48
0.30
0.18
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
3.27
3.36
$
0.11
0.29
0.58
0.73
0.55
0.47
0.29
0.18
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
NOTES
t'l Weighted average price forecast for AECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins.
tzl Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normalweather year.
ttl Column (c) times Column (d).
6
3.35
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Commodity Cost
Line Heating
YearNo.Month
Weighted Basin
Price Forecastlrl
HDD
Weigntl2l
HDD
Factol3l
Commodity
Cost
(a)(b)
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2032
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
2033
203/.
203/.
203/,
203/.
20u
2034
2034
2034
203r',
2034
203/,
2034
(c)(d)(e)(f)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
10$
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
10
11
12
,l
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
I
10
't1
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
II
3.16
3.38
3.57
3.73
3.50
3.31
2.92
2.83
3.00
3.03
3.',|.2
3.22
3.26
3.50
3.69
3.86
3.67
3.43
3.05
2.96
3_14
3.15
3.26
3.35
3.4',|'
3.66
3.85
3.88
3.68
3.46
3.08
2.99
3.16
3.18
3.29
3.38
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
'lo/o
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
16%
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7%
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
0.11
0.28
0.57
0.74
0.56
0.48
0.30
0.19
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.02 $3.38
$
0.11
0.29
0.59
0.77
0.58
0.50
0.32
0.20
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.30
0.61
0.77
0.59
0.50
0.32
0.20
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
3.51
NOTES
Itl Weighted average price forecast for AECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins
t2l Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normal weather year.
FlColumn (c) times Column (d).
7
3.57
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS GOMPANY
Commodity Cost
Line Heating
YearNo.Month
Weighted Basin
Price Forecasttll
HDD
Weig[1121
HDD
Factol3l
Commodity
Cost
(a)(b)
2035
2035
2035
2035
203s
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2035
2036
2035
2036
2036
2036
2036
2036
2036
2036
2036
2036
2036
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
2037
(c)(f)(e)(d)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
'12
13
'14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
10$
11
12
,|
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
o
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.43
3.69
3.89
3.96
3.77
3.56
3.17
3.04
3.24
3.24
3.34
3.49
3.51
3.76
3.97
4.12
3.82
3.61
3.22
3.12
3.29
3.29
3.39
3.54
3.56
3.85
4.05
4.'.|'l
3.77
3.52
3.13
3.04
3.23
3.22
3.30
3.46
3%
8%
16%
20o/o
16%
15o/o
10%
7%
3%
1o/o
0o/o
1%
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0%
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
'160/o
15o/o
10%
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
'lo/o
0.'11
0.30
0.62
0.79
0.60
0.52
0.33
0.20
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.02 $3.64
$
0.12
0.31
0.63
0.82
0.61
0.53
0.33
0.21
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.02 $3.72
0.12
0.32
0.64
0.82
0.60
0.51
0.33
0.20
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
NOTES
tll Weighted average price forecast for AECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins
l2l Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normal weather year.
lslColumn (c) times Column (d).
8
3.70
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Gommodity Cost
Line Heating
Year Month
HDD
Factol3l
Commodity
Cost
Weighted Basin HDD
PriceForecasttil Weighll2lNo.
(a)(b)(c)(f)(e)(d)
0.12
0.31
0.&r
0.81
0.61
0.53
0.34
0.20
0.'11
0.03
0.00
0.02
,|
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33u
35
36
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2038
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2039
2040
2040
2040
2040
20/.0
2040
20/,O
2040
20/,0
20/i0
20/,0
20/,O
10$
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
,l
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
o
3.48
3.83
4.03
4.08
3.84
3.61
3.23
3.09
3.32
3.3'1
3.40
3.56
3.57
3.97
4.13
4.23
3.91
3.65
3.27
3.17
3.39
3.39
3.46
3.60
3.63
4.00
4.18
4.09
3.82
3.61
3.26
3.2',|.
3.37
3.39
3.45
3.57
3%
8%
160/o
20%
16%
15%
10%
7%
3%
1o/o
0%
1%
3%
8o/o
16%
20o/o
160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
3o/o
8o/o
160/o
20o/o
'160/o
15o/o
10o/o
7o/o
3o/o
1o/o
0o/o
1o/o
0.12
0.33
0.66
0.84
0.62
0.53
0.34
0.21
0.12
0.03
0.00
0.02 $3.82
$
$3.73
0.12
0.33
0.66
0.82
0.61
0.53
0.34
0.21
0.1'1
0.03
0.00
0.02 $
NOTES
t'l Weighted average price forecast for AECO, Sumas, and Rockies supply basins
t2l Monthly HDD65 weighting. Based on a normalweather year.
ttl Column (c) times Column (d).
9
3.79
Line
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
Avoided Gas Transportation Gost
Description RS
Combined
RS and GS-lNo.GS-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(a)
Gas Transportation Coststll
Estimated Sales Volumes (l}nn} - gfl}f2lrl?t
RS and GS-l Combined Gas Transporlation Cost per Therm
lncremental Gas Transportation Costst3]
Nomalized Sales Volumes (1t1t1g - 12R11$f41
RS and GS-l Combined Gas Transportration Cost per Therm
$
$
(b)
45,923,915 $
261,036,059
(722,301) $
256,038,479
(c)
21,903,023 $
132,540,280
(d)
67,826,938
393,576,339
$o.17233
(344,4e4) $
128,439,528
(1,066,795)
38/.,478,007
$(0.00277)
$0.03937
$ 0.20893
Gas Transportation co#sl
Total RS and GS-l Comblned Gas Transportatlon Cost per Them
-u9!E9ttl See Case No. INT-G-20-05, Exhibit No. 6, Line 21, Columns (e) and (0.
H See Case No. INT-G-20-05, Exhibit No. 6, Line 22, Columns (e) and (f).
Fl See Case No. INT-G-20-05, Exhibit No. 5, the sum of Lines 1-20, Columns (i) and 0)H See Case No. INT-G-20-05, Exhibit No. 5, Line 24, Columns (i) and (j).
In See Case No. INT-G-20-05, Workpaper No. 8, Page 1.
10
Line
INTERiIOUNTAIN GAS COiIPANY
Dlscount Rate
Vdue RatoNo.Descrlp0on Wehheu WTaxbomfit
(a)(b)
Do4tll
Ecuft!fl1
WdghbdAtorage Cost of Capltal
+Aolo
9.50%
lnfratonAssum@n 2.0Yo
1.8o/oRoal Dk@untRab
xgtEt[l Coeila ard weigfrtrErs from Cae l,lo. Nf-G16{2, @r No. 33757
E tax beneftadlusbfur2'l% fsdoral tax,
tt
(d)(c)
Wo
(e)
1
2
3
I
5
50%
2.ieh
1.Wo
1.98% s
.1.80%
6.78o/o
E)GIIBIT NO.2
CASE NO. INT.G.22-03
INTERMOT]NTAIN GAS COMPANY
Energr Efficiency Stakeholder Committee
and Avoided Coot Subcommittee Meeting Minutcs
(8 pages)
Exhibit No. 2
Case No. INT-G22-03
lntermounlain Gas Company
Page 1 of 8
!ntermountain Gas Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee
Meeting
June 2, 2021 at L:00 pm
Minutes Recorded by Kody Thompson
Attendees:
Kody Thompson - lntermountain Gas Company
Landon Barber - lntermountain Gas Company
Lori Blattner - lntermountain Gas Company
Brad lverson-Long - IPUC
Emily Her - OEMR
John Fisk - lntermountain Gas Company
Meeting Facilitator: Kathy Wold
Heath Chisholm - Building Energy
Kevin Keyt - IPUC
Taylor Thomas - IPUC
Kieran Sprague - OEMR
Donn English - IPUC
Ben Otto - ldaho Conservation League
1:fl! PM - Meeting Convened - Kathy Wold
Kathy Wold started the meeting, welcoming those in attendance. A safety moment was shared, and
introductions were given by those in attendance.
1:10 PM - lmpact Evaluation - Kathy Wdd
A brief overview of the impact evaluation applied to the whole home and furnace incentives was given.
Two analyses were used: a billing analysis and a simulation analysis. The two methods used provided
different results, both were used to avoid over/understating therm savings. The UCT cost-testing
method is used for decision making. The TRC is presented for informational purposes but does not
inform program decision making.
1:15 PM - Cost-effectiveness - Kathy Wdd
The UCT results based on the billing and simulation analyses were presented. While a simulation was
not run on all of the incentives, the portfolio as a whole was affected with changes on the two measures
that were part of the analyses. Each incentive's cost-effectiveness results were discussed.
Exhibit No. 2
Case No. INT-G-22-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 2 of 8
Kathy presented the recommended changes to the existing incentives as advised by 3'd party evaluator,
ADM & Associates. Actual updates to the program, that took effect April L,?.OZL, were discussed. This
included: removing ENERGY STAR certification and the HERS score threshold from the Whole Home
program requirements, adding energy performance targets associated with gas savings to the Whole
Home requirements, adding more data points to rebate applications for a more robust energy savings
picture, updating rebate amounts and efficiencies for the water heater incentives, updating naming
conventions for the combination radiant heat system rebate and efficiencies, and retiring the fireplace
incentive.
The new measures that were added were discussed. The incentives added to the program include: a
second tankless water heater option, a boiler incentive, and a smart thermostat rebate.
1:30 PM - EM&V Process Update - Kathy Wdd
Based on recommendations from the process evaluation, the Program database has been updated to
standardize rebate tracking and status designations. The new measures have been incorporated into the
program rebate offering. lntermountain plans to develop educational materials for consumers, promote
training opportunities for builders and contractors, provide general cost-savings estimates when
available and applicable, and wil! develop a standard operating procedures manual.
lntermountain is working to increase communications to raise program awareness, will continue
community outreach, and will provide builders/contractors with marketing material.
A contractor network is under consideration. There is a password protected builder portal currently in
place on the website, that offers contractor resources, but it has low utilization.
lntermountain is also considering creating the ability for the customer to track the status of their
rebates. This is not something that will be available soon as it would require an lT solution but is
something lntermountain is continuing to look into potentially implementing.
1:30 PM - Rebate Grourth by Area - Kathy Wold
Kathy shared charts to show rebate program growth by category (appliance rebates and whole home
rebates) by district. These charts showed the total number of rebates by area from the start of the
Program through the end of the 2020 calendar year. The Committee requested clarification on how the
Company districts are determined. They are based on geographic regions. The Committee asked for a
status update on the initial uptake ofthe revised program launched April 1, and the nature ofthe cost-
savings project in development. lt was too early to report anything significant on the revised offering
since it had only been two months since the revision went into effect. The Company clarified a DIY
savings calculator was in development to help customers estimate potential savings associate with
installing high-efficiency appliances.
1:rt0 PM - Promotion, Education & Outreach - Kathy Wold
lntermountain has always had some sort of digital presence, this became more important to have during
2020 due to the COVID-l9 pandemic. Energy Efficiency tips, program offerings, Energy Star Day, and
Parade of Homes information were shared on social media.
Exhibit No.2
Case No. INT-G-22-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 3 of 8
lntermountain still participated in Parade of Homes to increase awareness. A sweepstakes was held as
part of lntermountain's Energy Efficiency Bill lnsert for 2020. Outreach was done by mail in 2020 due to
not being able to meet in person with builders. lntermountain attended outdoor events when and
where safety protocols were implemented to keep employees and the community safe.
Feedback from contractors indicated they would prefer an on-line form. An on-line form was first
available in 2020 as part of the contractor portal resources. Despite providing an on-line form, use of the
form remains quite low. To raise awareness about the on-line form and the contractor portal, the
Company held a contest in October. Contractors received a raffle entry for every on-line form
submitted. On-line rebate forms accounted for approximately L\o/o of all forms submitted 2020.To
increase utilization, the online form is now available to all customers.
The Company mailed the commercial program brochure to commercial contractors to announce the
launch of the program and prepare contractors for potential questions about the new program.
Commercial customers will receive a commercial program brochure as a bill insert in June.
The Committee asked if the Company has encountered any specific educational challenges regarding
commercial kitchen Equipment incentives. No specific challenges had been identified at the time.
1:50 PM - Securing an Energy Efficient Future - Kathy Wold
lntermountain is invested in keeping natural gas as a viable option in the clean energy future.
lntermountain provided an overview of its long-standing membership in the Gas Technology lnstitute
(GTl). lntermountain participates in GTI's emerging technology program, and as such was also a
sponsoring member of the Gas Heat Pump Roadmap. lntermountain is also a member of the North
American Natural Gas Heat Pump Collaborative. This is a new group that is involved in identifying
market barriers and impediments to market acceptance of gas heat pump technology, as well as raising
awareness and education and market acceptance of gas heat pump technology.
General Questions
The Committee asked if the Company has noticed any impacts on the program due to the revised
offering or the current housing market. No specific impacts have yet been identified, since the program
offering revision is still quite new. The Committee inquired about what steps lntermountain plans to
take to better improve cost-effectiveness and what to expect in the next EM&V. The Company followed
the recommendations of the 3'd pafi evaluator and implemented recommended changes. The
Company will continue to monitor performance and follow the cycle of planning-implementation-
evaluation. Committee members asked what action the Company is taking to educate customers about
choosing high-efficient options when equipment burns out. The Company aims to raise awareness about
energy efficiency in general, but also aims to raise awareness about the program with contractors as
they are often with the customer at the point of decision and are viewed as appliance experts.
Meeting Adjourned.
Exhibit No.2
Case No. INT-G22-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 4 of 8
Intermountain Gas Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Committee
Meeting
November 4,2027 at 1:00 pm
Minutes Recorded by Kody Thompson
Attendees:
Kathy Wold - Intermountain Gas Company
John Fisk - Intermountain Gas Company
Kody Thompson - Intermountain Gas Company
Lori Blattner - Intermountain Gas Company
Landon Barber- Intermountain Gas Company
Alexa Sakolsky-Basquill - OEMR
John Chatburn - OEMR
Kevin Keyt - IPUC
Guests and Presenters:
Kathy Wold - Intermountain Gas Company
John Fisk - Intermountain Gas Company
Kody Thompson- Intermountain Gas Company
Paul Glanville - GTI
Meeting Facilitator: Kathy Wold
Marissa Warren - OEMR
Michael Shepard - Neighborworks Boise
Paul Glanville - GTI
Selena O'Neal - Ada County
Taylor Thomas - IPUC
Travis Culbertson - IPUC
Will Gehl - City of Boise
1:fi) PM - Meeting Convened
Kathy welcomed everyone to the meeting, presented the agenda for today's meeting, and had members
of the stakeholder committee introduce themselves.
1:15 PM - Residential Program Outreach
John Fisk discussed the residential outreach efforts for the residential program. This included an
awareness campaign which involved placing ads on Valley Ride Transit CNG busses that traveled
throughout the Nampa and Boise areas. The campaign lasted 6 months, and the Company was able to
get discounted rates for the extension of the term. Valley Ride agreed to leave the advertising on buses
until another advertiser purchased the space.
John also provided an overview of the fall customer campaign in conjunction with the annual bill insert.
The bill insert promoted the launch of the energy savings calculator. The same information as shared
Exhibit No. 2
Case No. INT-G-22-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 5 of 8
with customers via email. Although results have not been finalized, participation in the sweepstakes was
greater than it had been in the past.
To promote the new revised Whole Home incentives, the Company sent a mailing to 2,200 residential
home builders in the service territory. lt included information on the updated offerings, as well as
deadlines for retiring programs.
1:15 PM -Commercial Program Outreach
John discussed a bill insert and customer letter that was sent to commercial customers and commercial
contractors within IGC service territory. Based on the success of the email campaign to residential
customers, the Company plans to promote the commercial program with an emailto commercial
customers. IGC has joined the American lnstitute of Architects ldaho Chapter and will explore
opportunities to raise awareness about the commercial program.
Energy Savings Kits have been created as part of a pilot program for Commercial customers. A bill onsert
(a graphic on the bill) was designed and sent to commercial customers that are eligible for these kits.
IGC partnered with GTI to include a Commercial Food Service Equipment calculator on the Company's
website to help business owners compare potential savings for installing high efficiency gas equipment.
Customers are able to save and print these results for future reference.
1:20 PM -Commercial Program Custom Program
lntermountain will explore ways to increase commercial energy savings by exploring a pilot-type interim
step between the prescriptive program and a custom program. IGC is in early talks with Cambridge Air
Solutions regarding their HTHV commercial unit heaters. lntermountain will start by doing some energy
usage analysis to verify savings to see if there is justification for a pilot program or a rebate offering.
1:25 PM - Rebates Update
Kody provided an update on the rebate program. lt continues to grow, but there may be a slowdown in
participation due to supply chain issues. Smart thermostat uptake and challenges were discussed. Kody
discussed the Whole Home submission process through Ekotrope which will help simplify the
submission process for builders participating in the program.
A question was asked about whether IGC had considered promoting the smart thermostat in
conjunction with the furnace to increase participation. The Company has not promoted these two
rebates together but will explore doing so.
l:t() PM - Supply Chain lmpacts
Kathy discussed supply chain issues that have impacted the program. This included delays in the ability
to install new service lines due to materials shortage, increased times to complete new builds, building
permits taking twice as long to approve, a severe shortage of flexible duct work. Contractors are
installing what they can find in stock. Latest industry news estimates supply chain delays will probably
get worse before they get better by end of 2022.
Questions were asked on whether the supply chain issues were impacting CPA results. The Company
clarified supply chain is unrelated to CPA, but supply chain issues could impact program participation if
high-efficiency equipment availability is limited or delayed.
Exhibit No.2
Case No. INT-G22-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 6 of 8
1:45 PM - Gas-fired heat pumps
Pau! Glanville, FR&D Director at the Gas Technology lnstitute, provided background on the Gas
Technology lnstitute. Paul introduced gas fired heat pumps, summarized their performance and
benefits, and explained how they work. Gas fired heat pumps can provide energy savings and
decarbonization benefits in commercial buildings. Residential uses for gas fired heat pumps and steps
being taken to reduce product barriers to uptake were also discussed.
Gas fired heat pumps deliver 40% or greater greenhouse gas reductions. They are integral to cost-
effective heat and water heat in net/near-zero energy buildings, maintaining thermal comfort especially
in cold climates, and readily utilize natural refrigerants. Mature products are available in North America
and abroad.
2:30 PM - Meeting Adjourned
Exhibit No.2
Case No. INT-G22-03
lntermountain Gas Company
Page 7 of 8
lntermountain Gas Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee
Avoided Cost Su bcom m ittee
March 9, 2022, at 10:00 AM
Attendees:
Lori Blattner - lntermountain Gas Company
Kody Thompson - lntermountain Gas Company
John Fisk - lntermountain Gas Company
Jacob Darrington - lntermountain Gas Company
Kathy Wold - lntermountain Gas Company
Landon Barber- lntermountain Gas Company
Alexa Sakolsky-Basquill - OEM R
Guests and Presenters:
Laura Conilogue - IPUC
Kevin Keyt - IPUC
Selena O'Neal - Ada County
Taylor Thomas - IPUC
Wil Gehl- City of Boise
Landon Barber - Avoided Costs - Distribution Cost Component
Meeting Facilitator: Kathy Wold
10:00 AM - Meeting Convened
Kathy Wold opened the meeting, welcomed the group to lntermountain Gas Company's meeting about
avoided cost, presented the agenda, conducted a safety moment and attendee roll call.
Kathy presented a brief overview of avoided costs and the role of avoided cost in the Utility Cost Test
(UgD.The previous work of the Committee resulted in an agreement on commodity costs and
transportation costs to be included in avoided costs. Distribution costs were inserted as placeholder
until a methodology could be developed to appropriately capture distribution costs.
Distribution Costs - Landon Barber
Landon presented the following:
o Avoided Cost formula, AC= commodity cost + transportation cost + variable distribution cost. Why distribution cost is a universal challenge - because utilities are unique and there is no "one
size fits all" solution, especially for gas utilities.
o Distribution costs have the least impact on cost effectiveness testing and requires significant
effort to identify. For example, the proposed method identifies SO.OS of distribution cost of the
tota! 50.55 of avoided costs.
o Goals of the model and concepts and definitions were explained.
Exhibit No.2
Case No. INT-G-22-03
lntermounlain Gas Company
Page 8 of 8
Model examined the system by Area of lnterest (AOl), not to design regional rebates, but to
identifo possible promotional opportunities.
Overview of capacity modeling, deferral valuation, and generalized deferral method, AOI
weighting and definition and identification of surrogate projects.
Committee questions:
o Has the Company worked with other utilities on avoided cost? No, the Company has researched
avoided cost methodology of how other utilities are applying avoided cost but has not worked
directly with other utilities.o Are the ldaho Falls Lateral (lFL) and Sun Valley (SVL) projects based on the project
enhancements identified in the IRP? Yes.o ts the information about IFL and SVL for demonstration purposes only, and avoided costs are to
be applied in total? Yes, lateral information is only used for determining if additional
promotional opportunities are available.o Does the model consider infrastructure replacement projects? No, it only takes into
consideration growth-related budget.
o Where does the annual budget come from? lt comes from the fixed asset group.
o Are the budget years cumulative or annual? How do you model beyond the five-year budget?
Each year is an annual number and the years beyond the five-year budget as based on a trend
line. The timeframe for completing a project is about 3 years. We don't look at specific projects
outside the five-year planning horizon.o Did you look at averaging the first five years of the annual budget? The first five years are fairly
level and the model essentially averages out everything because you might go years in a
particular place without any projects.
o How often would the model be updated? Every two years in conjunction with the lRP. A more
frequent update wouldn't change the numbers much and limiting changes to every two years
would help with program planning.
o Please explain the percent growth part of the annual budget. lt is the amount that the fixed
asset group has identified as growth projects.
o Will distribution costs vary from year to year based on the annual budget? Yes.
The Committee had additional discussion about the proportion of IFL and SVL as part of the system and
unique challenges of these AOl. lt was recommended that the next Conservation Potential Assessment
(CPA) try to examine the correlation between the cost to serve and the potential in IFL and SVL.
Next steps: the Company was asked to provide the PowerPoint presentation and worksheets used for
the model. There was discussion about how much information could be provided since the model relies
on private company annual budgets. The Company asked for time to consider how or if this information
could be shared. Additionally, the Committee determined that including the avoided distribution cost
component in the 2021 prudency filing would make sense.
Kathy wrapped up the meeting with an overview of the current residential energy efficiency rider
balance which is overfunded, alerting the committee that the Company will bring this to the attention of
the EESC, but actually may file for an EEC revision before the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned.
a
a