## POLLUTION PREVENTION

1. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions

a. Utility Integrated Resources Planning

(1) PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Renewable Additions

Start Date: Program / Initiative: Utility Integrated Resource Planning Program – PACIFICORP – Renewable power generation additions. End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Public Service
Commission of Utah Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: PACIFICORP in
consultation with the Public Service Commission, its staff, the Division of Public Utilities, the Committee of Consumer Services, appropriate Utah agencies and other interested parties. Lead Contact:

Funding Source: Utah customers of PacifiCorp through electricity rates approved by the Utah
Public Service Commission

$ Total:

$ per year: Installed Generation Capacity: Cumulative Installed MW capacity (wind) –
2005 – 60MW
2006 – 186MW
2007 – 318MW
2008 – 414MW
2009 – 546 MW
2010 – 687 MW
2011 – 834 MW
2012 – 981 MW 2013 – 1,146MW Renewable Contribution to the Portfolio:
Percent of Renewable Generation
2005 – 1.0%
2006 – 1.6%
2007 – 2.2%
2008 – 2.8%
2009 – 3.4%
2010 – 4.0%
2011 – 4.6%
2012 – 5.2%
2013 – 5.8% Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Public Service Co mmission of Utah (UPSC) requires PacifiCorp to pursue the least cost alternative for the provi sion of electric energy services to its present and future ratepayers that is cons istent with safe and reliable service, the fiscal requirements of a financially healthy utility, and the long-run public interest. The UPSC has adopted integrated resource planning (IRP) rules to meet these goals and periodically reviews plans PacifiCorp submits to assure new utility resource acquisitions are consistent with the UPSC IRP Standards and Guidelines and are likely to yield the op timal set of resources given the expected combination of costs, risks and uncertainty. Among other requirements, the UPSC IRP rules require PacifiCorp to consider environmental externalities and their costs explicitly and to evaluate supply-side and demand-side resources on a consistent and comparable basis. All technically feasible and cost-effective improvements in the efficient use of electricity,including load management and conservation must be evaluated. Similarly, all technically feasible generating technologies, including re newable resources, cogeneration, power purchases from other sources and the construction of thermal resources, must be assessed. PacifiCorp must submit its Integrated Resource Pl an to the UPSC biennially. PacifiCorp has committed itself to updating its IRP annually . The IRP process must be thoroughly documented and afford ample opportunity for public input and information exchange. PacifiCorp’s Strategic Business Plan must be related to its Integrated Resource Plan. An outline of the specific resource decisions intende d to implement the Integrated Resource Plan in a manner consistent with the PacifiCorp St rategic Business Plan must be supplied to the
UPSC. The UPSC IRP Standards and Guidelines must meet the needs of PacifiCorp’s Utah service area, but must not ignore the rules governin g similar processes in other jurisdictions to foster coordinated regional planning. Th e UPSC REPORT AND ORDER ON STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES , Docket No. 90-2035-01, articulates Utah’s Integrated Resource Planning requirements.

Program Components: PacifiCorp plans to purchase contracts for over 1,000MW of renewables, such as wind, geothermal or ot her resources, from 2003 – 2013. Solar and geothermal opportunities will also be examined on a case-by-case basis for economic merit and inclusion in the portfolio. Based on further analysis and clarification of wind and other renewable power capabilities, PacifiCorp expect s to include additional cost effective wind capacity in their portfolio. These renewable power acquisitions will be included in the rates consumers pay for power. Utah customers have historically paid approximately 38% of PacifiCorp’s overall revenue requirement in th eir rates. Because Utah customers will be paying for approximately 38% of the renewable power generation additions PacifiCorp plans to acquire for its portfolio, Utah can claim approximately 38% of these renewable power additions toward meeting the 10/20 goals articulat ed in Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



### (2) UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning

Start Date: Program / Initiative: Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) Integrated Resource Planning Program – Demand Side Management End Date:Sponsoring Organizations: Western Area
Power Administration under the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and its members Lead Contact:

Funding Source:

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): UAMPS is a project wholesale generation and transmission entity. Municipal utilities who are members purchase power from UAMPS through project contracts
and re-sell it to their retail customers. Each me mber is solely responsible to meet its load requirements. Members can meet their electricity needs through UAMPS or any other source. UAMPS does not have sole responsibility to serve its members’ loads. As a result, UAMPS can only coordinate its Integrated Resource Planning Program activities with members. UAMPS is not regulated by the Utah Public Service Commission. UAMPS prepares an Integrated Resource Plan and files it with the Western Area Power Administration (Western) to satisfy Western’s regulations and requirements c ontained in the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. UAMPS filed its “Integrated Resource Plan 2002” with Western. Western accepted the plan on December 27, 2002. UAMPS’ “Integrated Resource Plan 2002” covered a ten year planning period, but focused primarily on actions to be taken within the next five years. The Integrated Resource Planning Program is an ongoing, dynamic process in which resource choices are continually under review and re-e xamination. UAMPS fundamental goal is to provide reliable, competitively priced, and envi ronmentally acceptable power to its members. The Integrated Resource Planning Program strives to achieve this goal and effectively balance its objectives to minimize impacts on member ra tes, match operational need, maintain system reliability, minimize adverse environmental impact s, ensure flexibility, ensure short-term and long-terms needs are met and maintain diversity in its resource mix and market areas. UAMPS seeks member and public input on all of these matt ers through its Integrated Resource Planning Program. Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings

## b. Utah Net Metering Program

Start Date: Program / Initiative: Utah Net Metering Program End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: All electrical corporations within Utah as required by Utah Code Sections 54-15-101 through 54-15-106 Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: For each distribution electrical cooperative within Utah, their Board of Directors; for all other electrical corporations within Utah, the Utah Public
Service Commission. Lead Contact:

Funding Source:

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Utah Net Metering Program must be offered by all electrical corporations serving Utah loads. By law, elect rical corporations must allow customers with a generation system meeting the Net Metering Prog ram requirements to generate electricity for their own primary use, supply customer-generat ed power to the electrical corporation and receive a credit for any excess customer-gener ated power produced during a billing period against the cost of electricity supplied by th e electrical corporation within the same calendar year. Excess customer-generated power is th e amount by which customer-generated power
exceeds what has been delivered to the customer by an electrical corporation in a given billing period. All credits a customer earns, but fails to use during a calendar year expire at the end of the calendar year. To qualify for the Utah Net Metering Program, the customer generation system must be a fuel cell or generate power using the sun, wind or water. A customer generation system must have a capacity less than or equal to 25 kilowatts and be located on the customer’s premise to participate in the Utah Net Metering Program. All electrical corporations serving Utah customers must perm it their customers to interconnect to their transmission and distribution network so they can participate in the Net Metering Program. The customer generation system needs to meet specific requirements for interconnecting to the electrical corporation’s network. An electrical corporation can discontinue offering the Net Metering Program as long as the cumulative generating capacity from customer-generators on their system equals at least 0.1% of the electrical corporation’s peak demand during 2001 and at least half of the electricity counted toward th e 0.1% is generated by renewable sources. Utah Code Sections 54-15-101 through 54-15-106 authorize the Net Metering Program.

Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1. PacifiCorp Net Metering Participants Investment Energy SavingsService – Electric Service
Schedule Number 135

2. Other electric corporation tariffs or Board policies.

3.

4.



## c. Green Pricing: Pacifi Corp Blue Sky Marketing Program

Start Date: November 2, 2001 Program / Initiative: Green Power Marketing – PACIFICORP “Blue Sky” End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: PacifiCorp with approval of the Utah Public Service
Commission Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: PacifiCorp Lead Contact:

Funding Source: Ratepayers who agree to purchase blocks of renewable power to satisfy all or a portion of their demand

$ Total:

$ per year: Installed Generation Capacity: Renewable Contribution to the Portfolio:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The PacifiCorp “Blue Sky” Program allows certain classes of the Utah customers it serves to purchase blocks of ne w wind, geothermal and solar power to satisfy all or a portion of their demand. PacifiCorp’s Utah customers receiving electric service under Schedules 1, 2, 6, 6A, 9, 9A, 9B, 10, 19, 21, 23, 23B, or 25 anywhere on its interconnected system may elect to buy blocks of new wind, geothermal and solar generated power through this program. New wind, geothermal and solar generated power is ava ilable in blocks of 100KWh per block. Each block a customer ag rees to purchase costs them $1.95/month. The charge for each block a customer agrees to pur chase is added to all other charges contained in that customer’s applicable tariff schedule. Th e customer is charged for each block they agree to purchase regardless of their actual electricity c onsumption. Eligible customers may apply to purchase or terminate their purchases anytime during the year. PacifiCorp does not permit customers that have a time payment agreement, have received one or more disconnect notices
or have been disconnected within the last 12 months to enroll in the “Blue Sky” Program. PacifiCorp guarantees participating customers it will acquire and deliver new wind, geothermaland solar generated power within two years of their subscription to the “Blue Sky” Program. “Blue Sky” Program service is supplied according to the terms of an Electric Service Agreement it enters with participating cust omers. The Utah Public Service Commission approves the contents of these Electric Service Agreements. PacifiCorp’s “Blue Sky” Program has been authorized by the Ut ah Public Service Commission in PacifiCorp’s tariff, Electric
Service Schedule 70. Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



## d. Financial Incentives: Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credit Program

Start Date: January 1, 2001 Program / Initiative: Renewable Energy System Tax Credit Program End Date: December 31, 2006

Sponsoring Organizations: State of Utah Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Energy Office Lead Contact:

Funding Source:

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): Utah offers individua l taxpayers and business entities an income tax credit for buying and installing any active solar, passive solar, wind or hydropower system to supply all or part of the energy to the taxpayer’s pertinent residence or commercial unit.
Business entities can also claim an income tax credit for buyi ng and installing biomass systems and investing in commercial renewable energy sy stems to generate power for commercial sale. Taxpayers can claim the income tax credit on renewable energy systems purchased and installed between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2006. The income tax credits provided under this program are in addition to any federa l tax credits. The Utah Energy Office has theauthority to promulgate standards addressing safety, reliability, efficiency, leasing and technical feasibility that residential and commerc ial renewable energy systems must meet to
earn an income tax credit. Income tax credits can not be taken until the Utah Energy Office has certified that the renewable energy system has been completely installed and is a viable system for saving or producing energy from renewable resources. Program Components: Residential renewable ener gy system tax credit for individual taxpayers and commercial renewable energy system tax credit for business entities Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



## e. Government Endorsed Green Power Purchases

(1) Supplemental Environmental Project Program

Start Date: Program / Initiative: SUPPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS (SEPs) End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division Lead Contact: Rick Sprott

Implementing Organization: Air permit violators through escrow established to purchase power from PacifiCorps’ Blue Sky program Lead Contact:

Funding Source: Private funds collected as part of settlements to resolve air quality permit
violations.

$ Total:

$ per year: Varies based on the number and natu re of air quality permit violations and the willingness of violators to participate in a SEP. Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives):

In settlements of air quality enforcement actions, the Utah Division of Air Quality requires alleged violators to achieve and stay in compliance with their permit provisions and all applicable federal and state air quality laws and regulations and pay a civil penalty. In certain circumstances environmentally beneficial projects or Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) may be part of the settlement.SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects a defendant in an air quality enforcement action agrees to undertake as part of a settlement , but are not otherwise legally required. In return a percentage of the SEP costs may be used to mitigate the penalty paid by the defendant. All else being equal a final settlement penalty will be lower for a violator who performs an acceptable SEP. A SEP must improve, protect or reduce risk to public health or the environment. EPA has identified seven specific categories of projects which may qualify as SEPs, including,
Pollution Prevention”

. A pollution prevention project “...reduces the amount of pollution through source reduction” and “protects natu ral resources through conservation or increased efficiency in the use of energy, water or other materials. 1 ” Energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy programs can be incor porated into an approvable Supplemental Environmental Project. The Utah Division of Air Quality has no authority to require alleged violators to perform SEPs. Alleged violators have sole discr etion over whether or not to offer SEPs to help resolve air quality enforcement actions taken against them. The Utah Division of Air Quality will consider renewable energy SEPs, such as long-term purchases of PacifiCorps’ Blue Sky “green power” product or the construction of new renewable energy generation capacity, as a Supplement Environmental Project option to settle air quality enforcement actions. Renewable energy SEPs approved by the Utah Divison of Air Quality will contribute directly to meeting their 10/20 renewable energy goals.

Program Component Summary:

Component Name &
Lead Contact Number of Participants Investment Energy Savings
Direct Indirect

1.

2.

3.

4.

Total



### (2) Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program

Start Date: February 2002 Program / Initiative: Salt Lake City Local
Climate Action Plan End Date: Ongoing through 2012

Sponsoring Organizations: Salt Lake City Corporation Lead Contact: Lisa Romney, (801) 535-
7939

1 See “Categories for Supplemental Environmental Projects,” pg. 6, EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy , issued May 1, 1998.Implementing Organization: Salt Lake City Corporation Lead Contact: Lisa Romney, (801) 535-
7939

Funding Source: Existing city budgets

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Efficient lighting retrofits $33,571 in first year LED traffic signal lights $32,962 in first year Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Salt Lake City Co rporation, using Cities for Climate Protection software, has developed an action plan for Salt La ke City to comply with goals articulated in the Kyoto Protocol. While focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the plan replies on energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy power purchases to accomplish its purpose. Phase I of the action plan addresses st eps Salt Lake City government can take to improve its energy usage and purchase less polluti ng power and fuel supplies for its operations. Under Phase I of its plan, Salt Lake City has already completed energy efficient lighting retrofits, installed more efficient LED tra ffic signals, purchased “green”, wind power from PacifiCorp under its Blue Sky program and subs tituted bio-diesel, B-20, fuel for regular diesel fuel in its airport vehicles. Salt Lake City has committed to investigate and implement additional energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in the future. Salt Lake City plans to concentrate on reducing vehicles emissions th rough expansions of its mass transit system and improving heating, air conditio ning and ventilation systems efficiencies in city buildings. Salt Lake City government projects are intended to set standards for responsible growth and
resource use in the local area. Phase II of the ac tion plan extends its application to the entire community. Salt Lake City has already begun to promote and market energy efficiency programs and renewable energy consumption to its businesses and citizenry. For example, Salt Lake City recently joined PacifiCorp on a dir ect-mail marketing campaign of the Blue Sky, “green power”, program and sponsors E2 Business awards to recognize and promote businesses that meet environmental improvement and economic welfare goals. Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings

## f. Technical Assistance: Million Solar Roofs Partnership Program

Start Date: 2002 Program / Initiative: Million Solar Roofs Partnership End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Office of the Mayor, Salt Lake City through the U.S. Department of Energy Lead Contact: Lisa Romney - (801) 535-
7939

Implementing Organization: Office of the Mayor, Salt Lake City Lead Contact:

Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Technical support program to the Utah Public Service Commission Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Million Solar Roofs Partnership Program is a U. S. Department of Energy initiative to install solar systems on one million buildings within the United States by 2010. Through its partnership with the U. S. Department of Energy, Salt Lake City is seeking to get 500 buildings within the city to install solar systems by 2010. The Salt Lake City Million Solar Roofs Partnership Program provides technical expertise to the Utah Public
Service Commission to substantiate the cost e ffectiveness of partial utility funding for rooftop photovoltaic systems as one means for them to fu lfill customer power demands. By clarifying
the cost effectiveness of utilit y incentive payments for photovoltaic systems within Salt Lake City, the Office of the Mayor seeks to remove market barriers to entry and develop and strengthen demand for solar energy products loca lly. The Salt Lake City Million Solar Roof Partnership Program is intended to transform the local electricity market place and stimulate new technology application.

Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings

## 2. Utah Energy Efficiency Program Descriptions

a. Utility Integrated Resource Planning

(1) PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Pl anning – Demand Side Management

Start Date: Program / Initiative: Utility Integrated Resource Planning Program – PACIFICORP – Demand Side Management End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Public Service
Commission of Utah Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: PACIFICORP in
consultation with the Public Service Commission, its staff, the Division of Public Utilities, the Committee of Consumer Services, appropriate Utah agencies and other interested parties. Lead Contact:

Funding Source: Utah ratepayers $ Total: FY2003, $21,920,642; FY2004, $22,290,148; FY2005, $20,001,513; FY2006, $13,150,000; FY2007, $13,150,000; FY2008, $13,150,000; FY2009, $13,150,000; FY2010, $13,150,000; FY2011, $13,150,000; FY2012, $13,150,000. Direct Energy Savings:
Fiscal Year MWa MWH 2003 12.13 106,246 2004 12.71 111,297 2005 13.70 120,044 2006 12.34 108,130 2007 9.00 78, 840 2008 9.00 78,840 2009 9.00 78,840 2010 9.00 78,840 2011 9.00 78,840 2012 9.00 78,840 Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Public Service Co mmission of Utah (UPSC) requires PacifiCorp to pursue the least cost alternative for the provi sion of electric energy services to its present and future ratepayers that is cons istent with safe and reliable service, the fiscal requirements of a financially healthy utility, and the long-run public interest. The UPSC has adopted integrated resource planning (IRP) rules to meet these goals and periodically reviews plans PacifiCorp submits to assure new utility resource acquisitions are consistent with the UPSC IRP Standards and Guidelines and are likely to yield the op timal set of resources given the expected combination of costs, risks and uncertainty. Among other requirements, the UPSC IRP rules require PacifiCorp to consider environmental externalities and their costs explicitly and to evaluate supply-side and demand-side resources on a consistent and comparable basis. All technically feasible and cost-effective improvements in the efficient use of electricity, including load management and conservation must be evaluated. Similarly, all technically feasible generating technologies, including re newable resources, cogeneration, power purchases from other sources and the construction of thermal resources, must be assessed. PacifiCorp must submit its Integrated Resource Pl an to the UPSC biennially. PacifiCorp hascommitted itself to updating its IRP annually . The IRP process must be thoroughly documented and afford ample opportunity for public input and information exchange. PacifiCorp’s Strategic Business Plan must be related to its Integrated Resource Plan. An outline of the specific resource decisions intende d to implement the Integrated Resource Plan in a manner consistent with the PacifiCorp St rategic Business Plan must be supplied to the
UPSC. The UPSC IRP Standards and Guidelines must meet the needs of PacifiCorp’s Utah service area, but must not ignore the rules governin g similar processes in other jurisdictions to foster coordinated regional planning. Th e UPSC REPORT AND ORDER ON STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES , Docket No. 90-2035-01, articulates Utah’s Integrated Resource Planning requirements. Program Components: The energy efficiency measures PacifiCorp employs for Demand Side Management (DSM) in its IRP program vary in di spatchability, firmness of results, term of the load reduction benefit and persistence over time. PacifiCorp separates DSM measures it offers into four general classes or components. Cl ass 1 – Fully dispatchable DSM resources. Load reductions from this group of measures occur th rough active customer load controls. Once customers agree to participate in Class 1 DSM measures, the timing and duration of any load reduction is involuntary on their part within limits and parameters to which they have previously agreed. Examples include residen tial and commercial central air conditioner load control, irrigation load control, electric water heat load control and interruptible tariffs. Class 2 – Non dispatchable, growth neutral DSM resour ces. Energy and capacity savings from this group of measures are realized through technological improvements in appliances, equipment or structures. Savings last for the life of the installed systems. Reductions in power usage do not affect business or economic output. Examples include incentives to replace existing or upgrade new customer-owned equipment such as light s, motors, air conditioning systems, etc. Class 3 – Non dispatchable, load shedding buy down DSM measures. Energy and capacity savings from this set of measures have a short duration and are achieved through voluntary actions customers take in response to financia l incentives PacifiCorps o ffers them to reduce loads. Examples include Energy Exchange and curtailable tariffs. Class 4 – Non dispatchable, conservation education measures. Energy and capacity savings stem from behavioral changes better informed customers make. Exampl e include Power Forward, 20/20 Customer Challenge, public education and awareness cam paigns to promote power savings through conservative thermostat settings, turning off app liances when not in use and inverted block and time-of-use pricing structures. Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



### (2) UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management

Program / Initiative: Utah Associated Start Date:Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) Integrated Resource Planning Program – Demand Side Management End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Western Area
Power Administration under the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and its members Lead Contact:

Funding Source:

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): UAMPS is a project wholesale generation and transmission entity. Municipal utilities who are members purchase power from UAMPS through project contracts
and re-sell it to their retail customers. Each me mber is solely responsible to meet its load requirements. Members can meet their electricity needs through UAMPS or any other source. UAMPS does not have sole responsibility to serve its members’ loads. As a result, UAMPS can only coordinate its Integrated Resource Planning Program activities with members. UAMPS is not regulated by the Utah Public Service Commission. UAMPS prepares an Integrated Resource Plan and files it with the Western Area Power Administration (Western) to satisfy Western’s regulations and requirements c ontained in the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. UAMPS filed its “Integrated Resource Plan 2002” with Western. Western accepted the plan on December 27, 2002. UAMPS’ “Integrated Resource Plan 2002” covered a ten year planning period, but focused primarily on actions to be taken within the next five years. The Integrated Resource Planning Program is an ongoing, dynamic process in which resource choices are continually under review and re-e xamination. UAMPS fundamental goal is to provide reliable, competitively priced, and envi ronmentally acceptable power to its members. The Integrated Resource Planning Program strives to achieve this goal and effectively balance its objectives to minimize impacts on member ra tes, match operational need, maintain system reliability, minimize adverse environmental impact s, ensure flexibility, ensure short-term and long-terms needs are met and maintain diversity in its resource mix and market areas. UAMPS seeks member and public input on all of these matt ers through its Integrated Resource Planning Program. Program Components: Demand side management activities supported by UAMPS across its member system; demand side management activities underwritten by individual members on their systems Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3. Participants Investment Energy Savings4.



## b. Residential Energy Efficiency

(1) Low-income Weatherization Program

Start Date: July 1, 1975 Program / Initiative: Low-income Residential Weatherization Program End Date: Ongoing

Sponsoring Organizations: Utah Division of Community Development with the U.S. Department of Energy Lead Contact: Michael Johnson - (801)
538-8657

Implementing Organization: Bear River Association of Governments, Davis County Aging Services, Salt Lake Community Action Program, Housing Authority of Utah County, Six County Association of Governments, Five County Association of Governments, Uintah Basin Association of Governments, and
Southeastern Utah Association of Local
Governments Lead Contact:

Funding Source for Fiscal Year 2002-2003: $2,102,745 US DOE Weatherization Grant $1,137,523 Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program Transfer $1,030,435 TANF Grant $ 300,000 Utah Power/PacifiCorp Grant $ 250,000 Questar Gas $ 16,000 State of Utah

$ Total: $4,836,703

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Low-income R esidential Weatherization Program makes onetime energy efficiency improvements to dwellings occupied by low-income Utahans, reducing their energy costs while safeguarding their health and safety. Occupants must meet income guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the State of Utah to qualify to have energy saving improvements made to thei r dwelling through the program. Qualified lowincome applicants’ dwellings are audited to assess their energy performan ce and to identify the most effective energy saving measures to in stall using the National Energy Audit Tool (NEAT). NEAT is a software program devel oped for the program by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Based on the audit results, energy measures are incorporated into the dwelling and/or more efficient appliances are substitute d for inefficient ones. Energy efficiency measures that may be taken at low-income resi dences include, but are not limited to, ceiling,wall, floor, foundation, duct, water heater and pi pe insulation, combustion appliance testing, tune-ups, repairs and replacement, home envelop infiltration testing and leakage sealing, duct leakage testing and sealing, compact fluorescent lighting substitutions, electrical appliance replacement, health and safety improvements and en ergy related repairs. Low-income program participants also receive information on additi onal steps they can take to save energy and reduce their energy bills. Local public and non- profit agencies that work with low-income citizens carry out the program. On a national b asis, natural gas consumption in low-income dwellings participating in the program has been reduced 21.9% compared to their usage before weatherization. To date, 47,500 homes with low-income residents have been weatherized. Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



### (2) Residential Energy Efficiency Program

Start Date: Program / Initiative: Residential Energy Efficiency Program End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Utah Energy Office; Utah Energy Conservation Coalition, Energy
Rated Homes of Utah Lead Contact: Mark S. Eldredge, (801) 765-0034; Cris Peterson and David A. Wilson, (801) 765-0034 Implementing Organization: Utah Energy Conservation Coalition and Energy Rated
Homes of Utah Lead Contact: Cris Peterson, David A. Wilson and (801) 765-0034

Funding Source:

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): Utah has adopted and enforces the residential energy efficiency building standards contained in the 2000 Intern ational Energy Conservation Code. The Utah Uniform Building Standards Act establishes statew ide building energy construction standards. These standards are enforced by local building in spectors. Utah trains inspectors and offers
technical assistance to code enforcement offi cials to assure new home construction meets specified energy performance sta ndards. In addition, Utah sponsors numerous market-basedactivities to help home owners identify cost-effe ctive energy efficiency improvements they can incorporate into their homes, to give home buyers information they can use to distinguish energy efficient homes from other, less energy efficient homes that might be on the market, and to offer more attractive home financing terms to energy efficient home buyers. Utah has made a commitment to improving its “as built” environment by promoting a resource efficient, sustainable and ecologically friendly “whole-system s” approach to home building practices.

Program Components: Residential Energy Code, Residential Energy Code Training, Residential Energy Auditor Training, Home Energy Rating System, Energy Efficient Mortgages, and Greenenergy Homes Initiative Organization name /
Contact

1. Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing 2. Utah Energy
Conservation Coalition/Mark S. Eldredge 3. Utah Energy
Conservation
Coalition/David A. Wilson 4. Utah Energy
Conservation Coalition and Energy Rated Homes of
Utah/Cris Peterson 5. Utah Energy
Conservation Coalition and Energy Rated Homes of
Utah/Cris Peterson 6. Utah Energy
Conservation Coalition and Energy Rated Homes of
Utah/Cris Peterson Participants Investment

$70,000
FY2002/2003 Energy Savings

$350,000+/year



## c. Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency

(1) Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Demonstration Program

Start Date: 1997 Program / Initiative: Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Demonstration Loan Program End Date: May 2000 although 33% of loans remain active and energy savings persist Sponsoring Organizations: Utah Energy Office Lead Contact: Jon Allred, (801) 538-4713

Implementing Organiza tion: Participating
industrial and commercial facilities Lead Contact:Funding Source: Petroleum Violation Escrow Account funds

$ Total: $1,390,000

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Approximately $250,000 annually Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Utah Commerc ial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Demonstration Loan Program offered low-interest loans to finance the incremental costs of installing energy efficient process and system improvements and equipment replacements in
commercial and industrial establishments. Pa rticipating commercial businesses and industries conducted energy audits to identify cost-eff ective energy saving measures for which they sought loan financing from the program. The energy efficiency measures funded by the program were projected to payback initial invest ments through energy savings in five years or less. Approximately 67% of the original loan amounts have already been repaid. No new loans are being made since the program was designed to demonstrate the benefits commercial and industrial participants could derive fr om making energy efficient improvements and stimulate future private investment from conve ntional lenders. The Utah Energy Office may continue to monitor the energy savings from each loan project, resolve project issues, and collect any outstanding account delinquencies. Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



### (2) Industries of the Future Program

Start Date: May, 1999 Program / Initiative: Industries of the Future

End Date: August 28, 2005 unless extended by mutual agreement Sponsoring Organizations: U.S. Department of Energy and the State of Utah Lead Contact: Jack Jenkins (303) 275-4824 and Jon Allred (801) 538-4713

Implementing Organization: Utah Energy Office, Utah Department of Natural Resources Lead Contact: Jon Allred (801) 538-4713Funding Source: $100,000 – US Department of Energy 48,000 – Petroleum Violation Escrow Account $ Total: $148,000

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): Utah’s Industries of the Future Program encourages collaboration among industry, trade associations, academia, a nd the national laboratories to evaluate, develop, demonstrate and deploy more energy efficient industrial technologies, processes and practices. The program focuses on energy efficiency gains in eight large industrial sectors – agriculture, aluminum, forest products, chemicals, mining, metal casting, petroleum and steel. These industries are important to the Utah economy and use large amounts of heat, fuel and power. The Industries of the Future Program fosters cost-shared research and development partnerships to improve industr ial energy and materials use. The Utah Energy Office, Utah Department of Natural Resources, shares inform ation on best energy efficiency and renewable energy practices with key industries, sponsors industry forums and helps industry access federal laboratories and funding sources to accel erate the development and commercial use of advanced, energy and materials conserving processes and technologies. Utah has provided over 4000 companies with descriptions of “best practices”, a body of energy saving options for industries that includes easy-to-use energy savings calculators, motor-sizing formulas, software and other resources to aid managers in reduc ing their energy consumption per unit of production. Utah is monitoring industries’ response through surveys to assess the shop floor changes that have been adopted as a response to the program.

Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



## d. Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Programs

(1) State Buildings Energy Efficiency ProgramStart Date: June 23, 1999 Program / Initiative: State Building Energy Efficiency Program (SBEEP) End Date: 2010 unless Executive Order is
extended Sponsoring Organizations: Governor’s Office
of the State of Utah Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Utah Energy
Office Lead Contact: Mike Glenn (801) 538-5436

Funding Source: Funding for SBEEP comes from a variety of sources including settlement
funds held in Petroleum Violation Escort account s, federal energy program funds and a portion of the energy savings generated through SBEEP. The most significant source of funding is private capital that Energy Se rvices Companies are willing to invest through performance
contracts with the State of Utah.

$ Total:

$ per year: In Fiscal Year 2003, $331,602 has been budgeted to administer this program. Direct Energy Savings: $3,067,473 through June 30, 2002 Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The State Buildings Energy Efficiency Program (SBEEP) is a comprehensive, multi-faceted set of activities designed to reduce energy costs for Utah government buildings by a cumulative total sav ings of $20 million by 2010. SBEEP activities include energy efficient improvements to existing state facilities, retro-commissioning to optimize efficiency gains from these improvements, technical engineering assistance, energy efficient new building design standards and incen tives, a statewide energy management system for tracking energy use, education and trai ning for building occupants and managers, and promotion of energy efficient equipment purchases by state agencies.

The State Buildings Energy Efficiency Program w as authorized by the Quality Growth Act of 1999 (HB 119, 1999 General Sessi on) and is being implemente d through Executive Order of the Governor. SBEEP applies to each state agen cy, including each executive, legislative, and judicial branch department, agency, board, comm ission, or division and each state educational
institution. Program Components: Existing building retr ofits, new construction standards and design review, building commissioning and re-commi ssioning, energy efficient procurement and systematic energy management, tracking and training. Organization name /
Contact 1. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Energy Office/Mike Glenn (801) 538-5436 2. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Energy Office/Jim Hood (801) 538-5251 3. Utah Department of Participants Investment Energy SavingsNatural Resources, Utah Energy Office/Jim Hood (801) 538-5251
4. Utah Division of Purchasing/Reed Taylor (801) 538-3709



### (2) Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program

Start Date: Program / Initiative: Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Utah Energy Offi ce Lead Contact: Bernell Loveridge, (801)
538-5413

Implementing Organization: Utah Energy Office, Utah Office of Education Lead Contact: Bernell Loveridge, (801) 538-5413; Larry Newton, (801) 538-7668

Funding Source: Funding for the Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program activities comes primarily from settlement funds he ld in Petroleum Violation Escort accounts. Another significant source for funding may be pr ivate capital that Energy Services Companies are willing to invest through performance contr acts with schools and local government entities.

$ Total: $1,870,000

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Over $620,000 per year Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): Utah offers a broad ra nge of technical assistance, energy auditing
and financial assistance services to schools and units of local government through its Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program . For purposes of this program, units of local government include cities, towns, counties, sewer districts and public buildings such as libraries and recreational facilities. The Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program helps local governments to identify and finance energy efficiency improvements within their existing buildings and the facilities th ey operate and maintain. This program also supports engineering reviews of plans for new schools and additions to existing schools as well as on-site construction inspections to assure school buildings comply with current energy code requirements.

Program Components: Auditing and technical assistance to identify cost-effective energy efficiency improvements local governments can make to their existing buildings and the facilities they operate and maintain, a limited lo w interest loan pool for financing energy efficiency improvements in local government buildings, and new school design review and inspection assistance for assuring energy code compliance. Organization name /
Contact Participants Investment Energy Savings1. Utah Energy Office; Bernell Loveridge, (801)
538-5413 2. Utah Energy Office; Bernell Loveridge, (801)
538-5413
3. Utah Office of Education; Larry Newton, (801) 538-7668
4. $60,000

$1,800,000

$10,000 About $620,000/year



### (3) Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program

Start Date: February 2002 Program / Initiative: Salt Lake City Local
Climate Action Plan End Date: Ongoing through 2012

Sponsoring Organizations: Salt Lake City Corporation Lead Contact: Lisa Romney, (801) 535-
7939

Implementing Organization: Salt Lake City Corporation Lead Contact: Lisa Romney, (801) 535-
7939

Funding Source: Existing city budgets

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Efficient lighting retrofits $33,571 in first year LED traffic signal lights $32,962 in first year Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Salt Lake City Co rporation, using Cities for Climate Protection software, has developed an action plan for Salt La ke City to comply with goals articulated in the Kyoto Protocol. While focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the plan replies on energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy power purchases to accomplish its purpose. Phase I of the action plan addresses st eps Salt Lake City government can take to improve its energy usage and purchase less polluti ng power and fuel supplies for its operations. Under Phase I of its plan, Salt Lake City has already completed energy efficient lighting retrofits, installed more efficient LED tra ffic signals, purchased “green”, wind power from PacifiCorp under its Blue Sky program and subs tituted bio-diesel, B-20, fuel for regular diesel fuel in its airport vehicles. Salt Lake City has committed to investigate and implement additional energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in the future. Salt Lake City plans to concentrate on reducing vehicles emissions th rough expansions of its mass transit system and improving heating, air conditio ning and ventilation systems efficiencies in city buildings. Salt Lake City government projects are intended to set standards for responsible growth and
resource use in the local area. Phase II of the ac tion plan extends its application to the entire community. Salt Lake City has already begun to promote and market energy efficiency programs and renewable energy consumption to its businesses and citizenry. For example, SaltLake City recently joined PacifiCorp on a dir ect-mail marketing campaign of the Blue Sky, “green power”, program and sponsors E2 Business awards to recognize and promote businesses that meet environmental improvement and economic welfare goals. Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



### (4) Salt Lake Airport Electricity Conservation Program

Start Date: 1998 Program / Initiative: Salt Lake Airport Electricity Conservation Program End Date: Ongoing

Sponsoring Organizations: Salt Lake City, Department of Airports Capitol Improvement Project Committee Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: Salt Lake City, Department of Airports Lead Contact: John K. Cluff, (801) 575-
2956

Funding Source: Revenues to the Salt Lake City Department of Airports

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: $90,600 annually Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): The Salt Lake City Depa rtment of Airports manages a systematic program to identify and complete energy savings projects at the terminal, airport parking facilities and administrative offices. The Salt Lake City Department of Airports has already upgraded its terminal and concourse lighting usin g more energy efficient fixtures, installed occupancy sensors to eliminate unnecessary powe r usage, and improved power quality at the airport. Additional energy savings projects ha ve been identified and work is underway to complete them. The Salt Lake City Department of Airports plans to continuously analyze its energy use and make further, economical fac ility improvements to conserve power. Program Components:Organization name /
Contact

1.

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings



## e. Technical Assistance

(1) Energy Education in Schools Program

Start Date: 1997 Program / Initiative: Energy Education in Schools Program End Date: Ongoing

Sponsoring Organizations: Various Lead Contact:

Implementing Organization: Utah Energy Office with cooperation from participating Utah
School Districts Lead Contact: Bernell Loveridge, Utah Energy Office, (801) 538-5413; Sunny Dent, National Energy Foundation, (801)
908-5800. Funding Source: U.S Department of Energy, Utah School Districts, Questar Gas, Johson Controls, Inc., Utah Energy Office

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): Energy consumption in schools and homes is a function of systems, equipment and appliance efficiencies, occupant behavior and personal ha bits. Utah’s Energy Education in Schools Program offers grade appr opriate energy curriculum to teach students how to reduce energy consumption in th eir schools and homes through conscious, small behavioral changes and low-cost investments in more energy efficient technology. Students participating in the program are given opportun ities to apply classroom lessons to help reduce energy usage at their school. The Program enc ourages participating schools to monitor energy consumption so students can observe the impact they can have on energy use when they are
informed and conscientious.

Program Components: Jordan School District Energy Action in Schools, Utah EnergySmart Schools in Action Program, and En ergy Smart Schools PartnershipOrganization name /
Contact

1. Jordan School District Energy Action In Schools, Duane Devey, (801) 567-
8770 2. Utah EnergySmart Schools in Action Program, Denise Beaudoin, (801)
567-8770 3. Energy Smart Schools Partnership, Bernell Loveridge, (801) 538-5413
4. Participants

Jordan School Dist., Utah Energy Office, Johnson Controls, Inc., Questar
Gas Voluntary participation by Utah School Districts Investment

Between $14,000 and $121, 500

per year

FY2002-2003; $40,000 Energy Savings



### (2) Power Forward Program

Start Date: Program / Initiative: “PowerForward”

End Date:

Sponsoring Organizations: Office of the
Governor Lead Contact: Natalie Gouchnor

Implementing Organization: Partnership between state, local and federal government, communities, utilities, businesses, energy service companies and educators Lead Contact: Jeff Burks

Funding Source:

$ Total:

$ per year: Direct Energy Savings: Indirect Energy Savings:

Brief Narrative Summary of Project (include project purpose / intent, participant types, components, incentives): “PowerForward is a multifaceted energy conservation marketing program designed to reduce peak electricity demand in Utah. The Governor serves as the principle spokesperson for the campaign. The “PowerForward” Campaign maintains an energy “alert network” to provide a color-coded energy st atus to Utah consumers daily. Each status level is linked to a well-publicized set of easy to understand and implement energy conserving measures that consumers can follow to lower p eak electricity demand on the system. Peak electricity demand associated with new summer cooling loads primarily is growing nearly twice as fast as average energy consumpti on in Utah. The “PowerForward” Campaign promotes purchases of energy efficient cooling de vices and adoption of load control measures. The “PowerForward” Campaign actively encourag es participation by utilities, commercial,
industrial and retail businesses and educators. En ergy conservation media releases, consumer information, a website, and promotional events are packaged under the “PowerForward” label
to raise consumer awareness and mo tivate them to respond favorably.Program Components:

Organization name /
Contact

1. “PowerForward” Alert
Network

2.

3.

4. Participants Investment Energy Savings

90MW during peak hours in
2001