Market Transformation Program â€“ summary of semi-annual activity

JEFFREY W. JOHNSON Regulatory Affairs Manager Oaps State Regulation

Mail Station 9708 PO Box 53999 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 Tel 602-250-2661 [email protected]

March 1, 2013

Docket Control Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007

RE: Arizona Public Service Company's 2012 Demand Side Management Progress Report Docket No. E-00000U-13-0031

Pursuant to the Electric Energy Efficiency Standard Rules, A.A.C. R14-2-2409(A), APS is required to.

"By March 1 of each year, an affected utility shall submit to the Commission, in a Commission established docket for that year, a DSM progress report providing information for each of the affected utilities Commission-approved DSM programs.... "

Pursuant to Commission Decision No. 73089, the reporting requirements ordered in Decision Nos. 59601, 67744, 68648, 70637, 71444, 71866, 72032, 72060, and 72088 were superseded by the Energy Efficiency Rules and also required additional reporting requ irements.

Therefore, pursuant to R-14-2-2409(A) and Commission Decision No. 73089, Arizona Public Service Company is submitting its DSM Annual Progress Report for 2012. The confidential information referred to in this report will be submitted to Staff once a protective agreement is executed in this matter.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (602)2502661.

Sincerely,

d~·cf~4_r-Jeffrey W. Johnson

JJ/cd

cc: Brian Bozzo Barbara Keene

mailto:[email protected]

Arizona Public Service Company

2012 Demand Side Management Annual Progress Report

March 1, 2013

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Program Performance and Performance Incentive Calculations ............................................... 1 Table 1 DSM Program Expenses: Year-to-Date ....................................................................... 2 Table 2 DSM Program Expenses: Program-to-Date ................................................................. 4 Table 3 DSM Electric Savings:Year-to-Date .............................................................................. 5 Table 4 DSM Electric Savings:Program-to-Date ........................................................................ 6 Table 5 EE Societal Benefits & Performance Incentive: Year-to-Date ....................................... 7 Table 6 EE Societal Benefits & Performance Incentive: Program-to-Date ................................. 9 Table 7 Net Environmental Benefits: ....................................................................................... 10 Table 8 Demand Response Programs/Inititiaives Load Reductions and Energy Savings ....... 10 Residential Existing Homes Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning Program.............................. 11 Residential New Home Construction Program ......................................................................... 20 Consumer Products Program ................................................................................................... 25 Refrigerator Recycling Program ............................................................................................... 33 Behavioral Program ................................................................................................................. 37 Multi-Family Program ............................................................................................................... 40 Shade Trees Program .............................................................................................................. 44 Energy Wise Low Income Weatherization Program ................................................................. 47 Non-Residential Program for Large Existing Facilities ............................................................. 51 Bid for Efficiency Pilot .............................................................................................................. 63 Non-Residential New Construction and Major Renovations Program ...................................... 64 Small Business Program .......................................................................................................... 68 Schools Program ..................................................................................................................... 75

Energy Information Services Program ..................................................................................... 82 Codes & Standards Program ................................................................................................... 84 APS Peak Solutions® Program ............................................................................................... 87 Critical Peak Pricing Program .................................................................................................. 89 Time-of-Use Rates Including Super Peak Pricing Program ..................................................... 91 Home Energy Information Pilot Program.................................................................................. 93 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act .............................................................................. 96 Financing Programs ................................................................................................................. 97 DSM Measurement, Evaluation and Research ........................................................................ 98 Certification by Officer .............................................................................................................. 99

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

DSM ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD: JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2012

Page 1 of 99

INTRODUCTION Arizona Public Service Company (“APS”) is filing this Demand Side Management Annual Progress Report (“Progress Report”) for 2012 (“Reporting Period”) in compliance with R14-2-2409(A) and the reporting requirements contained in Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC” or “Commission”) Decision No. 73089. This report includes the following information for all APS Demand Side Management (“DSM”) programs that were in place during this Reporting Period:

• APS’s progress toward meeting the cumulative energy efficiency standard; • An identification of Commission approved DSM Programs and measures by customer

segment; • A description of the findings from any research projects completed; • A brief description of the program; • Program goals, objectives, and savings targets; • Level of customer participation; • Costs incurred disaggregated by type of cost, such as administrative costs, rebates, and

monitoring costs; • A description of the results of evaluation and monitoring activities; • kW and kWh savings realized; • Environmental benefits realized including reduced emissions and water savings; • Incremental benefits and net benefits in dollars; • Performance Incentive calculations; • Problems encountered and proposed solutions; • A description of modifications proposed for the following year; • If applicable, program or program measure termination and propsed date of termination; • Where, applicable, reporting requirements included in Commission Decision No. 73089 and

other Commission Decisions; and • Other significant information.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE CALCULATIONS Summary pages detailing the program expenses are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Tables 3 and 4 depict DSM program MW and MWh savings. Tables 5 and 6 depict net benefits and the performance incentive. Table 7 depicts the environmental benefits associated with the lifetime energy savings resulting from DSM programs. Table 8 depicts 2011 demand response (“DR”) load reduction and savings values.



Page 2 of 99

TABLE 1 Year-to-Date: DR Program Expenses: January 2012 – December 2012

DR Program MER Metering Program

Implemen-tation1

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin

Total Program

Cost HEI Pilot Program $9,769 $0 $275,625 $67,733 $101,681 $454,808 Marketing & MER of Rate Options

$0 $34,502 $35,232 $10,318 $0 $80,052

Peak Solutions $0 $0 $2,476,283 $0 $111,390 $2,587,673 DR Total $9,769 $34,502 $2,787,140 $78,051 $213,071 $3,122,533

Year-to-Date: Energy Efficiency (“EE”) Program Expenses: January 2012 – December 2012

EE Program Rebates & Incentives

Training & Technical

Assistance Consumer Education

Program Implemen-

tation1 Program

Marketing Planning &

Admin. Total

Program Cost

Residential: Consumer Products $4,716,311 $37 ($20,000) $2,446,603 $276,190 $388,928 $7,808,069 Existing Homes $7,197,702 $160,365 $243,764 $2,251,355 $279,848 $403,597 $10,536,631 New Construction $2,762,550 $77,795 $0 $447,945 $204,717 $132,073 $3,625,080 Appliance Recycling $284,002 $0 $0 $757,111 $98,683 $58,782 $1,198,578 Behavioral $0 $0 $0 $816,653 $0 $54,743 $871,396 Multi-Family $314,649 $45 $0 $838,093 $9,337 $108,244 $1,270,368 Shade Trees $41,546 $0 $1,691 $196,447 $1,027 $23,944 $264,655 Low Income $2,234,220 $11,085 $0 $50,000 $17,469 $120,246 $2,433,020 Totals for Residential

$17,550,980 $249,327 $225,455 $7,804,207 $887,271 $1,290,557 $28,007,797

Non-Residential: Lg. Existing Facilities $17,245,333 $247,963 $4,147 $2,539,924 $318,927 $221,821 $20,578,115 New Construction $2,904,519 $33,695 $860 $629,120 $78,230 $47,264 $3,693,688 Small Business $2,610,308 $24,104 $821 $736,895 $71,546 $72,065 $3,515,739 Energy Information Services

$0 $0 $1,170 $27,997 $0 $1,605 $30,772

Schools2 $2,911,475 $56,097 $1,107 $777,335 $69,114 $82,051 $3,897,179 Total Non-Residential

$25,671,635 $361,859 $8,105 $4,711,271 $537,817 $424,806 $31,715,493

Codes & Standards $0 $0 $0 $70,159 $0 $21,541 $91,700 EE Program Costs $43,222,615 $611,186 $233,560 $12,556,462 $1,425,088 $1,736,904 $59,814,990

Measurement, Evaluation & Research $1,929,312 Performance Incentive3 $8,631,364 TOTAL EE Programs $70,375,666

Total DSM Spending $73,498,199

1. Includes costs for Implementation Contractor for all programs. 2. Schools are allowed to receive funding from other Non-Residential programs as well. Refer to the subsection

on the Schools Program for additional information on total funds allocated to school districts to date. 3. The Performance Incentive is calculated in Tables 5 & 6, and the methodology/calculation was approved by

the ACC in Decision No. 69663 and was modified in the 2009 Settlement Agreement, Decision No. 71448.

Definitions Rebates & Incentives – Dollars that go toward customer rebates and incentives, installation of low income weatherization and low income bill assistance. Training & Technical Assistance – Dollars that are used for EE training and technical assistance. Consumer Education – Dollars that are used to support general consumer education about EE improvements.



Page 3 of 99

Program Implementation – Program delivery costs associated with implementing the program - includes implementation contract labor and overhead costs, as well as other direct program delivery costs. Program Marketing – Expenses related to marketing the program and increasing DSM consumer awareness (direct program marketing costs as opposed to general consumer education). Planning & Administration – APS’s costs to plan, develop and administer programs, which includes management of program budgets, oversight of the RFP process and implementation contractor, program development, program coordination and general overhead expenses. Measurement, Evaluation, & Research (“MER”) – Activities that will identify current baseline efficiency levels and the market potential of DSM measures, perform process evaluations, verify that energy-efficient measures are installed, track savings, and identify additional EE research. Performance Incentive – Share (%) of DSM net economic benefits (benefits minus cost), capped at a percent of total DSM expenditures, depending on the percent of MWh savings goal achieved.



Page 4 of 99

TABLE 2 Program-to-Date: DR Program Expenses: January 2011 – December 2012

DR Program MER Metering Program

Implemen-tation1

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin

Total Program

Cost HEI Pilot Program $17,302 $0 $488,172 $119,965 $180,092 $805,531 Marketing & MER of Rate Options

$0 $34,502 $35,232 $137,018 $0 $206,752

Peak Solutions $0 $51,017 $7,976,166 $0 $128,290 $8,155,473 DR Total $17,302 $85,519 $8,499,570 $256,983 $308,382 $9,167,756

Program-to-Date: EE Program Expenses: January 2005 – December 2012

EE Program Rebates & Incentives


Assistance

Consumer Education

Program Implemen-

tation1

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Total Program

Cost Residential: Consumer Products $23,263,137 $4,633 $52,177 $9,537,338 $3,361,261 $1,291,495 $37,510,041 Existing Homes $29,747,129 $924,880 $1,352,658 $9,186,922 $2,455,659 $898,665 $44,565,913 New Construction $7,012,256 $677,091 $129,336 $1,850,474 $2,385,619 $740,673 $12,795,449 Appliance Recycling $799,192 $0 $0 $2,179,075 $594,340 $96,018 $3,668,625 Behavioral $0 $0 $0 $1,623,107 $0 $154,203 $1,777,310 Multi-Family $528,624 $1,195 $101 $1,437,945 $18,310 $153,815 $2,139,990 Shade Trees $85,494 $0 $1,935 $435,770 $13,899 $33,920 $571,018 Low Income $11,083,829 $96,294 $22,972 $669,860 $66,874 $832,674 $12,772,503 Totals for Residential

$72,519,661 $1,704,093 $1,559,179 $26,920,491 $8,895,962 $4,201,463 $115,800,849

Non-Residential: Lg. Existing Facilities $48,091,502 $1,020,191 $288,596 $12,526,403 $2,916,307 $1,977,749 $66,820,748 New Construction $10,745,731 $214,538 $56,860 $5,080,532 $1,219,199 $731,959 $18,048,819 Small Business $7,146,822 $103,340 $25,872 $3,187,333 $589,789 $398,736 $11,452,022 Building Operator Training

$0 $56,897 $0 $22,043 $15,783 $7,480 $102,203

Energy Information Services

$102,659 $17,817 $1,753 $181,940 $12,686 $28,086 $344,941

Schools2 $7,465,920 $157,751 $26,349 $2,382,899 $723,254 $375,970 $11,132,143 Total Non-Residential

$73,552,634 $1,570,664 $399,430 $23,381,150 $5,477,018 $3,519,980 $107,900,876

Codes & Standards $0 $0 $0 $70,159 $0 $21,541 $91,700 EE Program Costs $146,072,295 $3,274,757 $1,958,609 $50,371,800 $14,372,980 $7,742,984 $223,793,425

Measurement, Evaluation & Research $11,034,012 Performance Incentive3 $23,193,752 TOTAL EE Programs $258,021,189

Total DSM Spending $267,188,945

1. Includes costs for Implementation Contractor for all programs. 2. Schools are allowed to receive funding from other Non-Residential programs as well. Refer to the subsection

on the Schools Program for additional information on total funds allocated to school districts to date. 3. The Performance Incentive is calculated in Tables 5 & 6, and the methodology/calculation was approved by

the ACC in Decision No. 69663 and was modified in the 2009 Settlement Agreement, Decision No. 71448. The PTD performance incentive amount is a summation of the performance incentive amount as calculated during each previous Reporting Period beginning with the January – June 2005 Progress Report.



Page 5 of 99

TABLE 3 Year-to-Date: DSM Electric Savings: January 2012 – December 20121, 4, 6

DSM Program Gross

Peak MW Capacity Savings

Gross Annual MWh Savings

Gross Lifetime2 MWh Savings

Net5 Peak MW

Capacity Savings

Net5 Annual MWh Savings

Net5 Lifetime2 MWh Savings

Residential: Consumer Products 14.9 142,774 915,718 14.9 142,774 915,718 Existing Homes 13.7 22,069 270,665 13.7 22,069 270,665 New Construction

2.7 14,002 280,044 2.7 14,002 280,044

Appliance Recycling 2.1 11,873 71,241 2.1 11,873 71,241 Behavioral 3.9 23,543 23,543 3.9 23,543 23,543 Multi-Family 0.4 5,380 45,896 0.4 5,380 45,896 Shade Trees 0.3 477 14,297 0.3 477 14,297 Low Income3 0.9 2,503 43,809 0.9 2,503 43,809 Totals for Residential 38.9 222,621 1,665,213 38.9 222,621 1,665,213 Non-Residential:

Large Existing Facilities 26.4 192,263 2,530,369 26.4 192,263 2,530,369 New Construction 4.9 31,905 467,012 4.9 31,905 467,012 Small Business 4.3 25,595 343,337 4.3 25,595 343,337 Energy Information Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 3.8 24,523 340,383 3.8 24,523 340,383 Total Non-Residential 39.4 274,286 3,681,101 39.4 274,286 3,681,101 Segment Totals 78.3 496,907 5,346,314 78.3 496,907 5,346,314 Codes & Standards 0.6 2,332 23,320 0.6 2,332 23,320 DR Contribution 52,400 52,400 DSM Total 78.9 551,639 5,369,634 78.9 551,639 5,369,634

1. Savings for 2008 and after are MER adjusted, per Decision No. 69663, and savings prior to 2008 are NOT MER adjusted.

2. Refers to savings over the expected lifetime of all program measures. 3. Semi-Annual Reports submitted prior to the July-December 2007 Report inadvertently reported only annual

MWh savings for the Low Income Program. 4. Savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. 5. Based on 2010 MER NTGR analysis, APS is utilizing a NTGR of 1.0 for all DSM programs and measures. 6. APS includes measure level savings in work-papers submitted to ACC Staff, as measure level savings are

too voluminous to include in this report. Definitions Gross Savings – Demand and energy savings related to the DSM programs prior to accounting for free-riders or spillover. Net Savings – Demand and energy savings related to the DSM programs after accounting for free-riders and spillover. Free-riders – Program participants who would have installed the energy-efficient DSM measures anyway, even if the program were not in operation. Spillover – Refers to indirect energy impacts of the program and estimates savings from customers who take the energy-efficient action as a result of knowledge of the program, but who do not receive an incentive through the program.



Page 6 of 99

TABLE 4 Program-to-Date: DSM Electric Savings: January 2005 – December 20121, 4, 6

DSM Program Gross Peak

MW Capacity Savings

Gross Annual MWh Savings

Gross Lifetime2 MWh Savings

Net5 Peak MW

Capacity Savings

Net5 Annual MWh Savings

Net5 Lifetime2 MWh Savings

Residential: Consumer Products 115.4 973,016 5,727,926 97.0 826,923 4,894,517 Existing Homes 63.4 98,011 1,320,740 52.9 86,877 1,156,357 New Construction 21.5 48,829 976,575 20.6 46,825 936,489 Appliance Recycling 6.2 39,988 239,927 5.4 34,549 207,293 Behavioral 5.4 36,123 36,123 5.4 36,123 36,123 Multi-Family 0.9 9,180 74,346 0.9 9,180 74,346 Shade Trees 0.8 1,249 37,455 0.8 1,249 37,455 Low Income3 2.1 9,849 181,427 2.1 9,849 181,427 Totals for Residential 215.7 1,216,245 8,594,519 185.1 1,051,575 7,524,007 Non-Residential: Large Existing Facilities 82.8 649,374 8,714,034 77.5 603,159 8,080,078 New Construction 19.0 209,065 3,011,751 16.4 173,704 2,507,971 Small Business 15.8 87,540 1,225,650 15.1 83,394 1,168,339 Building Operator Training

0.2 1,001 12,447 0.1 701 8,713

Energy Information Services 2.8 2,807 41,780 2.8 2,807 41,780 Schools 11.5 77,949 1,115,032 10.6 72,661 1,034,903 Total Non-Residential 132.1 1,027,736 14,120,694 122.5 936,426 12,841,784 Segment Totals 347.8 2,243,981 22,715,213 307.6 1,988,001 20,365,791 Codes & Standards 0.6 2,332 23,320 0.6 2,332 23,320 DR Contribution 96,533 96,533 DSM Total 353.1 2,342,846 22,738,533 308.2 2,086,866 20,389,111

1. Savings for 2008 and after are MER adjusted, per Decision No. 69663, and savings prior to 2008 are NOT MER adjusted.

2. Refers to savings over the expected lifetime of all program measures. 3. Semi-Annual Reports submitted prior to the July-December 2007 Report inadvertently reported only annual

MWh savings for the Low Income Program. 4. Savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. 5. Based on 2010 MER NTGR analysis, APS is utilizing a NTGR of 1.0 for all DSM programs and measures.

Definitions Gross Savings – Demand and energy savings related to the DSM programs prior to accounting for free-riders or spillover. Net Savings – Demand and energy savings related to the DSM programs after accounting for free-riders and spillover. Free-riders – Program participants who would have installed the energy-efficient DSM measures anyway, even if the program were not in operation. Spillover – Refers to indirect energy impacts of the program and estimates savings from customers who take the energy-efficient action as a result of knowledge of the program, but who do not receive an incentive through the program.



Page 7 of 99

TABLE 5 EE Societal Benefits and Performance Incentive

Year-to-Date: January 2012 – December 2012 EE Program Program Cost Societal Benefits Societal Costs Net Benefits

Residential: Consumer Products $7,808,068 $48,939,398 $12,750,266 $36,189,132 Existing Homes $10,536,630 $29,822,671 $17,883,116 $11,939,555 New Construction $3,625,080 $27,814,331 $11,253,052 $16,561,279 Appliance Recycling $1,198,578 $4,543,334 $914,576 $3,628,758 Behavioral $871,396 $949,706 $871,396 $78,310 Multi-Family $1,270,368 $2,044,435 $1,618,226 $426,209 Shade Trees $264,655 $2,201,373 $836,100 $1,365,273 Low Income1, 2 $2,433,020 $2,179,336 $2,179,336 $0 Totals for Residential $28,007,795 $118,494,584 $48,306,068 $70,188,516 Non-Residential: Large Existing Facilities $20,578,115 $148,993,238 $52,727,137 $96,266,101 New Construction $3,693,689 $27,929,281 $7,529,683 $20,399,598 Small Business $3,515,739 $21,053,740 $5,550,593 $15,503,147 Energy Information Svcs. $30,772 $0 $30,772 ($30,772) 4 Schools $3,897,179 $21,053,027 $9,456,651 $11,596,376 Total Non-Residential $31,715,494 $219,029,286 $75,294,836 $143,734,450 Segment Totals $59,723,289 $337,523,870 $123,600,904 $213,922,966 Codes & Standards $91,700 $1,491,162 $618,798 $872,364 Measurement, Evaluation & Research $1,929,312 $1,929,312 ($1,929,312) Performance Incentive Amount $8,631,364 $8,631,364 ($8,631,364) Total $70,375,665 $339,015,032 $134,780,378 $204,234,654

1. Program Costs include weatherization and bill assistance. Societal Costs do not include bill assistance because it does not contribute to electric savings.

2. Consistent with the ACC Staff’s analysis in Decision No. 68647, the societal benefit is equal to the societal cost, resulting in a benefit to cost ratio of 1.00 and net benefits of 0.

3. The ACC approved a revised Performance Incentive calculation in Decision No. 71448, on December 30, 2009, as follows. “The existing Performance Incentive shall be modified to be a tiered Performance Incentive as a % of net benefits, capped at a tiered % of program costs.

4. There were no new 2012 installations to report, and therefore, no incremental savings for Energy Information Services. However, the program remains cost effective based on on-going savings.

DSM Goal 2011 Retail Sales with Losses 29,957,370 DSM % Goal 1.75% DSM MWh Goal 524,254 2012 Annual DSM MWh Savings From EE Programs 499,239 From DR Programs (at 10% of Goal) 52,400 Total DSM Savings 551,639



Page 8 of 99

Achievement relative to the Company’s EE goal equals 551,639 MWh / 524,254 MWh, or 105% achieved, which placed APS in the 96% to 105% PI range. The 2012 Performance Incentive amount is the minimum of Net Benefits or Program costs:

Achievement Relative to the EE Goal Performance Incentive as % of Net Benefits

Performance Incentive Capped at % of Program Costs

96% to 105% 7% 14% Net Benefits, Program Costs (prior to PI and codes & standards)

$211,993,654 $61,652,601

Calculated PI Amount $14,839,556 $8,631,364



Page 9 of 99

TABLE 6 EE Societal Benefits and Performance Incentive Program-to-Date January 2005 – December 2012

1. Program Costs include weatherization and bill assistance. Societal Costs do not include bill assistance because it does not contribute to electric savings.

2. Consistent with the ACC Staff’s analysis in Decision No. 68647, the societal benefit is equal to the societal cost, resulting in a benefit to cost ratio of 1.00 and net benefits of 0.

3. The ACC approved a revised Performance Incentive calculation in Decision No. 71448, on December 30, 2009, as follows. “The existing Performance Incentive shall be modified to be a tiered Performance Incentive as a % of net benefits, capped at a tiered % of program costs.

4. The Behavioral Program was cost effective in 2012, as evidenced above in Table 5. However, the PTD results includes start-up costs that will be offset over time with additional savings.

EE Program Program Cost Societal Benefits Societal Costs Net Benefits Residential: Consumer Products $37,510,041 $272,636,604 $60,831,016 $211,805,589 Existing Homes $44,565,913 $102,819,546 $72,595,597 $30,223,915 New Construction $12,795,449 $74,878,965 $24,919,389 $49,959,576 Appliance Recycling $3,668,625 $12,233,188 $2,869,432 $9,363,756 Behavioral $1,777,310 $1,541,715 $1,777,310 ($235,595)4 Multi-Family $2,139,990 $3,575,887 $2,635,764 $940,123 Shade Trees $571,018 $3,994,458 $1,767,808 $2,226,650 Low Income1, 2 $12,772,503 $10,953,543 $10,953,543 $0 Totals for Residential $115,800,849 $482,633,906 $178,349,893 $304,284,013 Non-Residential: Large Existing Facilities $66,820,748 $414,304,108 $140,793,564 $272,529,688 New Construction $18,048,819 $118,577,790 $36,842,464 $81,307,521 Small Business $11,452,022 $73,342,110 $16,660,757 $56,423,684 Building Operator Training $102,203 $424,302 $183,392 $240,910 Energy Information Services $344,941 $1,694,660 $633,172 $1,061,488 Schools $11,132,143 $58,557,689 $22,973,258 $35,431,240 Total Non-Residential $107,900,876 $666,900,659 $218,086,607 $446,994,531 Segment Totals $223,701,725 $1,149,534,565 $396,436,500 $737,408,884 Codes & Standards $91,700 $1,491,162 $618,798 $872,364 Measurement, Evaluation & Research $11,034,012 $11,034,012 $(11,034,012) Performance Incentive3 $23,193,752 $23,193,752 $(23,193,752) Total $258,021,490 $1,151,025,727 $431,283,063 $719,742,664



Page 10 of 99

TABLE 7 Net Environmental Benefits1

Reporting Period Water Mil.

Gal.2 SOx Lbs. NOx Lbs. CO2

Mil. Lbs. PM10 Lbs.

Year-to-Date: January – December 2012

1,695 23,791 452,023 4,806 132,052

Program-to-Date: January 2005 – December 2012

6,456 90,628 1,721,928 18,309 503,035

1. The environmental reductions are based on the net KWh energy savings of all program measures installed

during the Reporting Period over their expected lifetimes. 2. Some measures will result in customer water savings, which this calculation does not include. Only utility water savings

are included in this calculation.

TABLE 8

Demand Response Program/Initiatives1 2012 Load Reduction and Energy Savings: January – December, 2012

Program/Initiatives Load Reduction (MW)

Energy Savings Year-to-Date

(MWh)2

APS Peak Solutions® 63 275,940

Critical Peak Pricing 0.6

2,453

Time of Use Rates & Super Peak 118.24

517,585

Total 181.8 795,9783

1. No load reduction was assumed for the HEI Pilot because the savings are unknown at this time. 2. Energy Savings (MWh) = Load reduction (MW) X (8,760/2) hours X 50% load factor. 3. Per ACC Decision No. 71436, the credit for demand response and load management peak reductions shall not

exceed 10% of the EE standard for any year. 4. The load reduction estimate is for 2011; as the estimate for 2012 was not finalized at the time of filing this report.



Page 11 of 99

PROGRAM: RESIDENTIAL EXISTING HOMES HVAC Description The Residential Existing Homes Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Program (“Residential HVAC”) is divided into two distinct components, 1) HVAC measures and 2) Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® (“HPwES”) measures. The HVAC measures use a combination of financial incentives, contractor training and consumer education to promote the proper installation and maintenance of energy-efficient HVAC systems. The Air Conditioner (“AC”) Rebate, Duct Test and Repair and Residential Diagnostic measures support energy-efficient Residential air conditioning and heating systems along with the proper installation, maintenance and repair of these systems. The HPwES measures promote a whole house approach to EE by offering incentives for improvements to the building envelope of existing Residential homes within the APS service territory. HPwES includes measures that improve the EE of the home with air sealing, insulation, shade screens, faucet aerators, and low flow showerheads. Both components of the Residential Existing Homes HVAC program provide APS customers with referrals to contractors who meet strict program requirements for professional standards, technician training, and customer satisfaction. The two components are discussed individually below: a. HVAC Measures – AC Rebates, Duct Test and Repair and Residential Diagnostic The AC Rebate with Quality Installation (“QI”) measure offers financial incentives to homeowners for buying EE equipment (>13 SEER/10.8 EER), that is installed in such a manner that it meets the program requirements for air flow, refrigerant charge and sizing. The Duct Test and Repair (“DTR”) measure provides financial incentives to customers for having their HVAC system’s duct work tested for leakage and repaired. APS also has a pilot Residential Diagnostic measure to provide a financial incentive for an advanced diagnostic tune-up on existing air conditioning and heat pump equipment to ensure that it operates more efficiently. The main components of this measure are the correction of the refrigeration charge, leak repair, condenser coil cleaning and air flow verification. In June 2006, APS implemented the AC Rebate measure. On August 1, 2007, APS began offering the QI measure to optimize the installation of high-efficiency equipment that meets the AC Rebate measure requirements. This measure has high standards on air conditioning sizing, airflow and refrigerant charge to ensure that when the equipment is installed, it will operate at a high level of efficiency. On December 31, 2007, APS began the DTR measure which offers financial incentives to customers that test and, if necessary, repair the duct work in their homes.



Page 12 of 99

On April 7, 2009, the ACC approved the combination of the AC Rebate and QI measures along with revised incentive levels. See the January through June 2009 Semi-Annual Progress report for a detailed explanation. On October 7, 2009, the ACC approved APS’s request to modify the contractor requirements to offer the AC Rebate and QI measures. See the July through December 2009 Semi-Annual report for a detailed explanation. The Residential Diagnostic measure was approved as a Pilot on January 6, 2011 and it was launched on March 31, 2011. Program Modifications Decision No. 73089, April 5, 2012 approved changes to the AC Rebate with QI. The rebate amount was changed to $270 for all SEER levels and EER of 10.8 or above. As of April 7, 2012 the rebate levels no longer varied by SEER levels and anything installed after this date received the $270 rebate if it complied with the other program requirements. The contractor rebate of $50 was also discontinued as of April 5, 2012. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The HVAC component of the program uses a combination of financial incentives, contractor training and consumer education to promote high-efficiency HVAC systems, through the proper installation of this equipment, increasing existing equipment efficiency, and the testing and repair of the duct work in existing Residential homes within the APS service territory. APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimated that the EE savings expected to result from the HVAC portion of the program could reduce peak demand by approximately 14.0 MW, 19,000 MWh annually and 205,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation

• A total of 13,999 rebates were paid through the HVAC portion of the program in 2012. APS has paid: 1. AC Rebate Incentive Levels in 2012

a. 704 of the $175 AC rebates for 13 SEER/10.8 EER equipment with QI to the customer; $50 to contractor. This rebate ended on April 4, 2012

b. 2,256 of the $425 AC rebates for 14 - 16 SEER/10.8 EER equipment with QI to the customer; $50 to contractor This rebate ended on April 4, 2012



Page 13 of 99

c. 249 of the $525 AC rebates for 17+ SEER/10.8 EER equipment with QI to the customer; $50 to contractor. This rebate ended on April 4, 2012.

d. 6,145 of the new $270 AC rebates for all SEER/10.8 EER equipment with QI to the customer that began on April 5, 2012.

e. 1,810 of the $100 Residential Diagnostic rebates. 2. 2,835 DTR reported rebates. There was 3,375 total rebates, 540 were for tests without

repairs. Only the repair (2,835) rebates are used for calculating the demand and energy savings shown in the savings table below.

• There are currently 194 contractors that can offer the APS AC Rebate of which 145 are APS Qualified Contractors. There are 49 Rebate Eligible contractors that entered the program through the application process approved by the ACC in October 2009, which does not require membership in the Arizona Heat Pump Council. There are currently 37 contractors that can offer the rebates outside the metropolitan (“metro”) area serving Arizona City, Aquila, Big River, Bouse, Bullhead City, Casa Grande, Camp Verde, Chino Valley, Clarkdale, Coolidge, Cornville, Cottonwood, Dewey, Eloy, Flagstaff, Florence, Jerome, Kingman, Lake Havasu, Parker, Payson, Prescott, Prescott Valley, Sedona, Show Low, Waddell, Wickenburg, Whitman and Yuma.

• 1,492 (contractor) students participated in APS sponsored training courses, in both metro and non-metro training classes, to meet APS Qualified Contractor program training requirements for 2012.

• The APS Energy Answer Line provided 1,959 referrals to customers seeking HVAC service, repair or replacement of their home HVAC system in this Reporting Period.

• There are currently 55 contractors with Building Performance Institute certificates that are receiving DTR referrals. 622 Duct Rebate calls were taken during this Reporting Period. There are ten such contractors outside of the Phoenix area, serving Flagstaff, Show Low, Yavapai County and Yuma.

• The APS Qualified Contractor list, which is posted on the aps.com website, had 13,858 visits in 2012. The APS AC Rebate webpage had 26,859 visits, 10,757 visits for the DTR webpage and 24,332 for the Residential Diagnostic webpage.

• There were 96,587 unique user visits to the APS Energy Survey home energy audit at aps.com during this Reporting Period. Energy savings are not currently being attributed to customers who complete the on-line audit.

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Continued to review and update Residential HVAC Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on Residential HVAC components of program design tool to support implementation plan.

• Developed savings and cost assumptions for new Prescriptive Duct Sealing measure.

• Completed metering of HVAC systems for a sample of customers receiving DTR services.



Page 14 of 99

• Assessed measurement and computational capabilities of multiple HVAC diagnostic tools used by program contractors. Provided list of required measurements to support annual evaluation efforts.

• Conducted process and customer satisfaction surveys with participants receiving quality installation, DTR, and advanced diagnostic and tune up services.

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings

1. DTR total number of units shows only the number of rebates paid for repair work. The rebates paid for just the duct test are not included.

2. MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. In addition to the savings shown above, the HVAC measures includes a number of market transformation efforts, such as contractor training and customer education activities designed to transform the market to EE. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions The AC Rebate program was modified as described above by Decision No. 73089. The Residential Diagnostic measure experienced a slow year in 2011, as described in last year’s Semi-Annual report. This measure saw considerable improvement this year. The volume and contractor execution of this measure has gotten significantly better. In the fall of 2012, APS starting providing more extensive hands on technician training for this measure that has allowed for further improvements in the measure’s delivery in the field.

Incentive Type Number of Units

Annual kWh Savings per

Unit

TOTAL Annual MWh

Savings

Est. Measure

Life

Total Lifetime

MWh

Coin. kW Demand Savings Per Unit

Total MW Savings

13 SEER/10.8 EER w/ QI, $175 704 1,015 715 10 7,146 0.555 0.4 14 -16 SEER/10.8 EER w/ QI, $425 2,256 1,303 2,940 11 32,335 0.708 1.6 17+ SEER/10.8 EER w/ QI, $425 249 1,441 359 12 4,306 0.757 0.2 All SEER/10.8 EER w/QI, $270 6,145 980 6,022 10 60,221 0.527 3.2 Residential Diagnostic 1,810 565 1,023 6 6,136 0.377 0.7

Duct Test and Repair1 2,835 1,017 2,883 18 51,898 1.161 3.3

TOTAL 13,999 13,941 162,041 9.4



Page 15 of 99

Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

DSM ProgramRebates & Incentives


AssistanceConsumer Education

Program Implement

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

Res. Existing HVAC (AC Rebates, DTR, RD) $3,956,266 $117,767 $243,764 $1,143,512 $87,048 $266,313 $5,814,670

DSM Program

Implementation (Contractor)

Implementation (APS)

Program

Implementation Res. Existing HVAC $1,103,018 $40,494 $1,143,512

During the Reporting Period, participation in the Res. Existing HVAC program was less than expected, resulting in the program being under budget for the year. APS shifted a portion of the Res. Exiting HVAC budget to the Res. New Construction program, to accommodate an unexpected level of participation in that program. The Residential Diagnostic measure improves considerably from 2011, but was still under the budgeted volume. Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report during this Reporting Period Other Significant Information Residential Existing Home HVAC program marketing and consumer/contractor education efforts for this Reporting Period include:

• TV ads promoting the program ran on Fox AZ, Fox Sports, KNXV, KPNX, KSAZ, KTVK, KTAZ (Telemundo Spanish), Telefutura and Univision (Phoenix and Yuma Spanish) and My45.

• Radio ads to promote the program ran on KTAR-AM, and Spanish stations KSUN, KHOT, KOMR, KOMR, KLNZ, KVVA, KNAI, KVIB and KCEC (Yuma).

• Articles in APS Lifestyles Newsletter for February (Ducts), March (Residential Diagnostic), May (Residential Diagnostic), June (AC), July (AC), August (AC), September (Residential Diagnostic), November (Ducts).

• Newspaper ads in the Arizona Informant, Bajo El Sol, La Voz, Prensa Hispana. Online Banner Ads:

• Online Banner Ads ran on abc15.com the web sites for Arizona Highways, Arizona Diamondbacks, Arizona Informant, Phoenix Mercury, Phoenix Suns, Telemundo and Univision.

• Presentations on the APS Residential DSM programs to numerous community groups. Most of the consumer education events listed under Consumer Products includes information on the AC Rebate and other APS Residential programs.

• The aps.com homepage prominently features APS EE and renewable energy programs. These programs are grouped in one section of the homepage entitled “Green Choice,” which is



Page 16 of 99

coordinated with the current advertising campaign and makes these programs easier to find for customers.

b. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® The HPwES program offers home owners a $99 comprehensive home energy checkup to help identify ways to improve EE and comfort throughout the home. This program element offers a direct install feature that includes up to 10 compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”), three faucet aerators, and one low-flow showerhead that are installed at the time of the checkup. Additional financial incentives are available for duct sealing, air sealing, insulation, and shade screens, once a home owner has completed an HPwES checkup. After measures are installed, rigorous test out and quality assurance protocols then verify installation quality and performance. In January 2010, the ACC approved HPwES as a new measure under the Residential HVAC program. Program Modifications No significant program modifications were made to the HPwES program during this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The HPwES measures promote a whole house approach to EE by offering financial incentives for improvements to the building envelope of existing Residential homes within the APS service territory. ACC Decision No. 71448 requires the APS HPwES measure to complete a minimum of 1,000 energy audits in 2010 and a total of 3,000 audits between 2010 and 2012. The program has completed 11,995 audits to date and has met both of these objectives. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation During this Reporting Period:

• A total of 7,357 contractor rebates were paid through HPwES for completed and approved energy audits. Each home that received a $99 home energy audit, also received a direct install bag containing 1 low-flow showerhead, 3 low-flow aerators and ten 13 watt compact florescent light bulbs.

• The APS HPwES program paid rebates for measures installed in 2384 participating homes. This indicates that 32.4% of homes that completed an audit during the Reporting Period took steps to install additional measures as a result of the audit. The total number of customer rebates paid was 5,324, which averages about two rebates per home. Specifically, APS has paid:

a. 2,763 duct sealing and repair rebates.



Page 17 of 99

b. 373 air sealing only rebates. c. 1,722 air sealing and attic insulation rebates. d. 466 shade screens rebates.

• There are currently 71 qualified HPwES contractors. Contractors must complete the Building Performance Institute’s Building Analyst certification and undergo a mentorship with the Foundation for Senior Living Home Improvements prior to becoming active. HPwES currently serves Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and Yuma counties.

• The APS HPwES call center has received 4,990 referral inquires by telephone. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Continued to review and update program Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.Provided guidance on Home Performance components of the program design tool in support of the implementation plan.

• Continued review of program implementation data to support energy model assumptions.

• Continued billing records analysis to determine potential impacts from audit only participants.

• Conducted interviews with a sample of Home Performance contractors to refine measure cost estimates.

• Completed metering of HVAC systems for a sample of customers receiving DTR services.

• Conducted process interviews with program contractors participating in the Financing Program.


1) MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%.



Unit

TOTAL Annual MWh

Savings

Est. Measure

Life

Total Lifetime

MWh


Total MW Savings

Direct Install Low-Flow Showerheads with Shower Start 7,357 122 900 10 9,003 0.003 0.0 Direct Install Low-Flow Faucet Aerators 22,071 10 214 10 2,143 0.000 0.1 Direct Install CFLs 73,570 25 1,811 6 10,863 0.003 0.2

HPwES Duct Sealing 2,763 1,017 2,811 18 50,593 1.161 3.2 HPwES Air Sealing Only 373 508 190 15 2,844 0.178 0.2 HPwES Air Sealing and Attic Insulation 1,722 925 1,593 17 27,073 0.325 0.6 HPwES Shade Screens 466 1,310 610 10 6,104 0.619 0.3

TOTAL 108,322 8,128 108,624 4.3



Page 18 of 99

In addition to the savings shown above, HPwES does not include a number of market transformation efforts, such as contractor training and customer education activities designed to transform the EE market. These elements of the program produce additional energy savings and benefits that are not quantified. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions Measure and evaluation results determined that the initial air tightness of participating homes was tighter than the original program baseline had estimated. This is primarily due to the average participating home having masonry walls or traditional wood framing and stucco, with the primary foundation type being slab on grade. This construction style is tighter than we estimated and thus did not yield the air leakage reduction expected. This condition is reflected in the MER result for this reporting period. To improve the air sealing measure cost effectiveness, APS proposed to set an existing leakiness threshold for air sealing rebate eligibility. Effective March 1, 2013, a participating home must have an existing leakiness of 16 ACH50 in order to quality for an air sealing incentive. Due to measure and evaluation received in early 2012, APS decided not to launch the performance based rebate measure for HPwES approve in Commission Decision No. 73089. The funding for this measure was shifted to the existing prescriptive measures in the HPwES program. The performance based rebate measure will not be included in the 2013 Implementation Plan. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

DSM Program Rebates & Incentives


Assistance

Consumer Education

Program Implement

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

HPwES $3,241,436 $42,598 - $1,107,843 $192,800 $137,283 $4,721,960

DSM Program

Implementation

(Contractor)


Program Implementation

HPwES $1,075,182 $32,661 $1,107,843 Findings From Research Projects Nothing to report during this Reporting Period. Other Significant Information In recognition of the ongoing success of the APS EE program portfolio and the APS Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® and ENERGY STAR Homes Programs, APS was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) as a 2012 ENERGY STAR® Partner of the Year, Sustained Excellence Award winner. This is the highest award that can be earned by an ENERGY



Page 19 of 99

STAR® partner, and is bestowed on partners who show sustained excellence in their commitment to EE and whose organization is a national model of best practices in advancing EE. APS has now earned ENERGY STAR® awards for seven consecutive years. APS works closely with other utilities in the state to coordinate the delivery of HPwES statewide. In 2012, APS continued to work closely with Salt River Project as we coordinate program delivery to optimize delivery across both electric service territories. During the summer of 2012, APS coordinated with Southwest Gas to launch their insulation rebate through the APS HPwES program structure. This coordination allowed us to further ensure market consistency, while enhancing the customer experience through a joint program delivery. HPwES marketing and consumer/contractor education efforts for this Reporting Period include: • Distribution of an HPwES brochure through community events, trade allies, contractors, and other

industry partners. • Using the APS call center, we held a call center campaign to promote home energy checkups to

qualified customer that called during the summer months. • Launched a new customer education video on aps.com/checkup and the aps youtube channel. • A stand alone website is available at www.azhomeperformance.com. • Television ad to promote the program ran on Cox Cable, Fox AZ, Fox Sports, KNXV, KTAZ-TV

(Telemundo Spanish), Telefutura and Univision (Spanish). • Event based marketing with the Suns, Diamondbacks, and several trade shows. • Radio ads to promote the HPwES on KMXP, KPKX, KNIX, KSLX, KESZ, KMLE, KOOL, KUPD in

Phoenix, and sister stations in Coconino and Yavapai counties. • Articles in: APS Lifestyles Bill Insert for July and August. • Presentations on the APS Residential DSM programs to numerous community groups. Most of

the consumer education events listed under Consumer Products included information on the HPwES and other APS Residential programs.

http://www.azhomeperformance.com/�



Page 20 of 99

PROGRAM: RESIDENTIAL NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION Description This program promotes high-efficiency construction practices for new homes. It offers incentives to builders that meet the program’s EE standards. The program emphasizes the whole building approach to improving EE and includes field testing of homes to ensure performance. Participating builders are trained to apply building science principles to assure that high-efficiency homes also have superior comfort and performance. The program also provides education for prospective homebuyers about the benefits of choosing an energy-efficient home and the features to consider. The program takes advantage of the national ENERGY STAR® brand name, and promotes the EPA ENERGY STAR® label to prospective homebuyers. To encourage builders to meet the program’s high-efficiency standards, APS provides builder incentives of $1,000 per home for ENERGY STAR version 3 compliant homes. To encourage builders to meet even higher EE standards, the program also offers a second tier incentive of $1,500 per home for builders that meet the higher savings level of Home Rating Energy System (“HERS”) 60. Program Modifications Beginning January 1st, 2012 the National ENERGY STAR Homes Program introduce Version 3, which increases that minimum efficiency standards for ENERGY STAR certified homes. As approved in Commission Decision No. 73089, APS introduced two new builder incentives, replacing the Version 2 incentives, for Version 3 and a higher tier Version 3 – HERS 60, to align with the changes in the national program. APS did not receive approval for the new incentives until April 5th, 2012. In an effort to support our builder partners, Incentives processed between Jan. 1st and April 4th, 2012 were completed under Version 2 incentives approved for the 2011 program year. The change of incentives mid-year is reflected in the reporting for this period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The program objective is to increase the penetration of homes built to high-efficiency standards. The rationale for this program is that Residential new construction in the APS service territory, particularly the Phoenix metro area, has historically been one of the biggest drivers of APS’s system load growth. It is more cost-effective to work with builders to implement EE at the time of construction rather than to attempt to retrofit efficiency after a home has been built. For many new home measures, such as building envelope improvements, the benefits of EE upgrades will be sustained for the life of the home to produce cost-effective savings. APS’s analysis of this program, as filed in the 2012 APS DSM Implementation Plan, estimates that the EE savings expected to result from the Residential New Construction Program in 2012 could



Page 21 of 99

reduce peak demand by about 3.7 MW, 9,000 MWh annual energy savings, and 180,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation During this Reporting Period, APS signed up 10,452 homes that are committed to being built to ENERGY STAR® V3 program standards and to being built to the ENERGY STAR® V3 – HERS 60 program standards. This growth in signed homes is a strong indicator that new home market is beginning to recover. At the end of this Reporting Period, there were 42 homebuilders and 160 subdivisions currently participating. The program currently includes ENERGY STAR® communities throughout the APS service territory including the Phoenix metro area, Yuma, Casa Grande, Florence, Prescott, Verde Valley, and Flagstaff. APS paid a total of 2,737 homebuilder incentives and 2,015 $50 rater incentives during the reporting period. Specifically, APS has paid:

• 151 ENERGY STAR Home – January – April 2011 • 571 ENERGY STAR Tier 2 (HERS 70) – January – April 2011 • 1,913 ENERGY STAR Version 3 • 102 ENERGY STAR Version 3 – HERS 60

Since the start of this program in 2006, APS has paid incentives on 12,065 ENERGY STAR® homes. During this Reporting Period, APS held 5 builder trainings. The training, called “Success with ENERGY STAR®”, teaches builders and their subcontractors about techniques for improving construction details that impact efficiency and that allow the home to pass ENERGY STAR® inspections. The training includes detailed customized construction photos and process checklists to ensure implementation accuracy at the job site. In addition, APS provided sales training and/or technical training assistance to numerous Arizona builders during this Reporting Period. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Continued to review and update Residential New Construction Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on the Residential New Construction components of the program design tool in support of the implementation plan.

• Assessed impact of new building code adoptions across all APS jurisdictions on energy consumption of non-participant homes.



Page 22 of 99


Measure # of Homes Completed


Home

Total Annual MWh Savings

Est. Measure Life (yrs.)

Total Lifetime

MWh

kW Demand Savings

Per Home

Total MW Savings

APS ENERGY STAR Homes (Jan. - Apr.)

151 2,922.28 441 20 8,825 2.4 0.4

Second Tier - HERS 70 (Jan. - Apr.)

571 4,828.40 2,757 20 55,140 2.5 1.5

APS ENERGY STAR HOMES V3

1,913 5,301.72 10,142 20 202,844 2.9 5.6

APS ENERGY STAR HOMES V3 - HERS 60

102 6,487.68 662 20 13,235 3.1 0.3

TOTAL 2,737 14,002 280,044 7.7 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. In addition, program consumer education and homebuilder training efforts produce significant additional energy savings and benefits that are not quantified here. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions Nothing to report during this Reporting Period. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

Incentives Training & Technical



Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

Res. New Home Construction

$2,762,550

$77,795

$0

$447,945

$204,717

$132,073

$6,625,080

DSM Program

Implementation

(Contractor)

Implementation

(APS)


Res. New Home Construction $0 $447,945 $447,945 During the Reporting Period, participation in the Res. New Construction program was higher than expected, resulting in the program exceeding the budget for the 2012 program year. To accommodate an unexpected level of participation in the Res. New Construction program, APS shifted addition budget from the Res. Exiting HVAC program.



Page 23 of 99

Findings From Research Projects No findings to report at this time. Other Significant Information In recognition of the ongoing success of the APS EE program portfolio and the APS ENERGY STAR® Homes and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Programs, APS was selected by the U.S. EPA as a 2012 ENERGY STAR® Partner of the Year, Sustained Excellence Award winner. This is the highest award that can be earned by an ENERGY STAR® partner, and is bestowed on partners who show sustained excellence in their commitment to EE and whose organization is a national model of best practices in advancing EE. APS has now earned ENERGY STAR® awards for seven consecutive years. In a 2012 report released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arizona was identified as having the greatest market share in the country for ENERGY STAR Certified new homes. This metric reflect the success of the APS ENERGY STAR Homes program and the strength of you builder and rater partners. In September, APS was the presenting sponsor and key contributor to the national Energy Efficient Building Alliance conference, held in Scottsdale. APS brought in trainers from the ENERGY STAR homes program staff and Advanced Energy to develop and present specific ENERGY STAR breakout sessions for builders, including “Success with ENERGY STAR ,” “Success with Cathedralized Attics,” “HVAC for ENERGY STAR V 3.0,” and “Why ENERGY STAR.” APS also coordinated and helped present workshops on green appraisals, building codes and more. The event was attended by many local and regional builders - APS provided partial scholarships for 24 participating ENERGY STAR builders. In April 2012, APS official launched a new program database as provided by Pivotal Energy Solutions. With this new database, raters can now directly submit the more robust ENERGY STAR Version 3 compliance documentation through an online portal. This new software will improve incentive processing efficiency, provide better reporting capabilities, and collect more comprehensive data on participating homes. APS is currently working on extending the user functionality beyond raters, to our builder partners. Program marketing and education efforts during this Reporting Period include the following:

• Television – APS developed and aired a new ENERGY STAR homes TV ad in 2012. The ad aired on local news and sports broadcasts, including Phoenix Suns NBA games and Arizona Diamondbacks baseball games. The simple ad touts the energy savings and benefits of ENERGY STAR homes.

• Direct mail – Monthly ‘New Homes’ flyer sent to targeted zip codes lists all participating APS ENERGY STAR homebuilders and communities.



Page 24 of 99

• Bill inserts/newsletter articles – APS featured articles about ENERGY STAR homes in the March, April, June and September issues of the ‘Lifestyles’ newsletter sent to APS residential customers.

• Realtor publication – Monthly publication lists all new home communities and homes for sale in the metro Phoenix area. APS advertising includes banner ads highlighting all participating ENERGY STAR communities.

• 2012 Homebuilders Association member directory - the back cover ad to promote the APS ENERGY STAR® Home program to builders

• Provided sales agent training for APS ENERGY STAR® Home builder sales staff • Distributed APS ENERGY STAR® Home program sales book for builder sales agents to

use in selling the features of ENERGY STAR® Homes to prospective homebuyers. • Distributed Energy cost brochures – customized point of sale brochures that describe APS

ENERGY STAR® Homes features and outline the approximate annual and monthly energy costs per model.

• Distributed a homebuyer brochure that is targeted to new buyers and discusses the features and benefits of an ENERGY STAR® home. The brochures are being distributed at community events and at participating builders’ model home sales offices.

• Construction Corner at aps.com – web pages targeted to Arizona homebuilders. Features promotion of program benefits for builders.



Page 25 of 99

PROGRAM: CONSUMER PRODUCTS PROGRAM Description The Consumer Products Program is composed of two components – Residential Lighting and Residential Pool Products. The Residential Lighting element of the program promotes high-efficiency EPA/DOE ENERGY STAR® CFLs. CFLs use an average of 75% less energy than standard incandescent bulbs and last up to ten times longer, typically saving consumers up to $40 in energy costs over the life of each bulb. The program offers discounts on CFLs through cooperative agreements with retailers and lighting manufacturers. This provides consumers with reduced retail prices for CFLs at local lighting retailers, with prices typically at or below $0.99 per bulb for standard 60 watt equivalent CFLs. The Energy-Efficient Pool Pump and Timer element of the Consumer Products program is designed to improve the EE in Residential pool operations while maintaining equivalent or better standards for pool sanitation and cleanliness. The program promotes the installation and optimal calibration of energy-efficient variable -speed pool pump motors and seasonal timers with rebates ranging from $75 to $270. Program Modifications A.R.S. § 44-1375 (“Title 44”) includes Arizona legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2012 which mandates that pool pumps sold in Arizona must have a minimum of two speeds with an accompanying controller capable of toggling between speeds, thereby eliminating the sale of single-speed pool pumps as primary filtration systems on standard pools. As a result, it was not necessary to continue to rebate dual speed pool pumps since that is now the minimum required to be compliant with the statute. Another modification to one of the measures within the Pool Pump and Timer program proposed during this Reporting Period was to suspend offering $75 rebates on seasonal timers. After the issuance of Commission Decision No. 73809, the only company which manufactured the “seasonally adjusted” Pool Timers as part of APS’s Consumer Products Program went out of business. This has left the market without a widely distributed product that meets the current APS program guidelines, and consequently program participation in 2012 was very low with only seven units rebated to customers. Therefore, sufficient participation data was not available to conduct research regarding the cost effectiveness of the measure. Because there are currently no opportunities for customers to purchase qualifying timers, APS has proposed not including pool timers as an eligible measure for 2013. If a new product becomes available which meets APS’s program guidelines, APS may seek to reinstate the measure as part of a future DSM Implementation Plan filing. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.



Page 26 of 99

Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets For the CFL element of the program, the goal is to promote the purchase of high-efficiency CFLs and increase the awareness and knowledge of retailers and consumers on the benefits of ENERGY STAR® rated lighting products. For the energy-efficient pools element of the program, the goal is to promote the purchase of high-efficiency variable-speed pool pumps and seasonal pool timers. In a typical Arizona home with a pool, the pool pump energy use can make up a significant portion of annual energy use, often second after heating and cooling costs. APS’s analysis of the overall Consumer Products program, including both the CFL and pools elements of the program, estimates that the EE savings expected to result from the program could reduce peak demand by about 13.0 MW and reduce energy consumption by 696,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation During this Reporting Period, the energy-efficient lighting element of the program resulted in sales of 2,651,802 CFLs through participating retail locations. In addition, APS distributed 121,579 CFLs during community events and consumer education seminars, for a combined total of 2,773,381 CFLs distributed during 2012. There were also approximately 325 retail outlets participating throughout the APS service territory where APS customers could purchase discounted CFLs. Participating retailers during this Reporting Period included: 99 Cents, Ace Hardware, Batteries Plus, Big Lots, Costco, Dollar Tree, Goodwill Industries, Home Depot, Lighting Unlimited, Lowe’s, Sam’s Club, True Value, and Wal-Mart. The pool pump and timers element of the program received approval in January, 2010. The program currently includes 213 participating pool retailers, distributors, and pool builders. During this Reporting Period, a number of pump calibration training seminars were held with a total of more than 83 pool professionals trained. In addition, program representatives attended pool industry association meetings and conducted retail visits to inform pool professionals about the APS rebate program.

During this Reporting Period, the program provided rebates for 3,858 variable speed pool pumps, and 7 seasonal pool timers.



Page 27 of 99

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings for CFL’s

Units Units In

Service In APS Service

Region

Watts Lighting

Watts/Bulb Saved

HVAC Watts/Bulb

Saved Hours

per year Estimated Life (yrs)

Annual Gross MWh

Savings

Lifetime Gross MWh

Savings

Annual kW Demand Savings

135 114 7 18 5 876 7 2 14 0

77 65 9 31 9 876 7 2 14 0

6,718 5669 9 31 9 876 7 170 1188 14

6,571 5545 9 31 9 876 7 166 1162 13

61,523 51916 9 31 9 876 7 1554 10875 126

803 678 9 31 9 876 7 20 142 2

1,428 1205 9 31 9 876 7 36 252 3

36,347 30671 10 30 9 876 7 888 6218 72

4,902 4137 10 30 9 876 7 120 839 10

2,363 1994 11 29 9 876 7 56 391 5

3,814 3218 11 29 9 876 7 90 631 7

14,558 12285 11 29 9 876 7 344 2407 28

212 179 11 29 9 876 7 5 35 0

2,337 1972 11 39 12 876 7 74 520 6

11,147 9406 11 29 9 876 7 263 1843 21

1,484 1252 11 39 12 876 7 47 330 4

4,608 3888 12 48 15 876 7 180 1261 15

810,650 684059 13 47 14 876 7 31037 217258 2514

2,342 1976 13 47 14 876 7 90 628 7

2,047 1727 14 46 14 876 7 77 537 6

51,805 43715 14 46 14 876 7 1941 13589 157

19,334 16315 14 51 15 876 7 803 5623 65

14,990 12649 14 46 14 876 7 562 3932 45

6,108 5154 14 36 11 876 7 179 1254 15

7,310 6168 14 51 15 876 7 304 2126 25

628,457 530317 14 46 14 876 7 23549 164846 1907

3,420 2886 14 46 14 876 7 128 897 10

3,456 2916 14 46 14 876 7 130 907 10

2,370 2000 14 46 14 876 7 89 622 7

255 215 14 36 11 876 7 7 52 1

354 299 14 46 14 876 7 13 93 1

5,423 4576 14 46 14 876 7 203 1422 16

1,372 1158 14 51 15 876 7 57 399 5

527 445 14 46 14 876 7 20 138 2

4,798 4049 15 45 14 876 7 176 1231 14

3,546 2992 15 45 14 876 7 130 910 11

2,088 1762 15 45 14 876 7 77 536 6

100,197 84550 15 50 15 876 7 4081 28567 331

2,893 2441 15 50 15 876 7 118 825 10

3,082 2601 15 45 14 876 7 113 791 9



Page 28 of 99

Units

Units In Service In

APS Service Region

Watts Lighting

Watts/Bulb Saved

HVAC Watts/Bulb

Saved

Hours per year

Estimated Life (yrs)

Annual Gross MWh

Savings

Lifetime Gross MWh

Savings


179 151 15 45 14 876 7 7 46 1

1 1 15 35 11 876 7 0 0 0

14 12 15 35 11 876 7 0 3 0

16,148 13626 15 45 14 876 7 592 4144 48

105,622 89128 15 50 15 876 7 4302 30114 348

1,024 864 15 50 15 876 7 42 292 3

3 3 16 49 15 876 7 0 1 0

1,056 891 16 49 15 876 7 42 295 3

39 33 16 49 15 876 7 2 11 0

497 419 16 44 13 876 7 18 125 1

617 521 18 57 17 876 7 29 201 2

145,894 123111 18 57 17 876 7 6774 47419 549

3,355 2831 18 57 17 876 7 156 1090 13

90 76 18 52 16 876 7 4 27 0

22,992 19402 18 57 17 876 7 1068 7473 86

104,574 88244 18 57 17 876 7 4856 33989 393

170 143 19 56 17 876 7 8 54 1

101,112 85322 19 56 17 876 7 4613 32288 374

2,174 1835 19 56 17 876 7 99 694 8

210 177 19 56 17 876 7 10 67 1

1,887 1592 20 55 17 876 7 85 592 7

605 511 20 55 17 876 7 27 190 2

35,970 30353 20 55 17 876 7 1612 11281 131

10,918 9213 20 70 21 876 7 623 4358 50

5,056 4266 23 67 20 876 7 276 1932 22

62 52 23 97 29 876 7 5 34 0

6,708 5660 23 52 16 876 7 284 1989 23

5,567 4698 23 67 20 876 7 304 2127 25

3,434 2898 23 97 29 876 7 271 1899 22

4,142 3495 23 97 29 876 7 327 2291 27

233,483 197022 23 67 20 876 7 12743 89202 1032

70 59 23 67 20 876 7 4 27 0

46 39 23 67 20 876 7 3 18 0

16,627 14031 23 67 20 876 7 907 6352 73

4 3 23 52 16 876 7 0 1 0

416 351 23 67 20 876 7 23 159 2

2,720 2295 23 77 23 876 7 171 1194 14

1,140 962 23 97 29 876 7 90 631 7

24 20 25 75 23 876 7 1 10 0

5,721 4828 26 64 19 876 7 298 2088 24

691 583 26 64 19 876 7 36 252 3



Page 29 of 99

Units

Units In Service In

APS Service Region

Watts Lighting

Watts/Bulb Saved

HVAC Watts/Bulb

Saved

Hours per year

Estimated Life (yrs)

Annual Gross MWh

Savings

Lifetime Gross MWh

Savings


324 273 26 64 19 876 7 17 118 1

70,666 59631 26 64 19 876 7 3684 25789 298

187 158 26 64 19 876 7 10 68 1

256 216 26 64 19 876 7 13 93 1

2,748 2319 26 64 19 876 7 143 1003 12

52 44 27 93 28 876 7 4 28 0

3,174 2678 27 63 19 876 7 163 1140 13

89 75 27 98 30 876 7 7 50 1

278 235 27 98 30 876 7 22 155 2

39 33 29 121 37 876 7 4 27 0

62 52 30 95 29 876 7 5 34 0

10,467 8832 31 94 28 876 7 801 5610 65

2,241 1891 32 118 36 876 7 215 1508 17

2,146 1811 32 118 36 876 7 206 1444 17

218 184 32 118 36 876 7 21 147 2

1,134 957 32 118 36 876 7 109 763 9

80 68 33 117 35 876 7 8 53 1

10 8 40 110 33 876 7 1 6 0

17 14 40 160 48 876 7 2 16 0

1,973 1665 42 108 33 876 7 174 1215 14

307 259 55 145 44 876 7 36 254 3

2,773,381 2,340,290

114,254

799,781

9,253

Line Losses 7% 7% 11.7%

Capacity Reserve

15%

TOTAL

122,252

855,766

11,724

In Service bulbs 14,527 0 1,480

TOTAL 136,779 855,766

13,204

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings for Pools Measures The program provided the following rebates to participating APS Residential customers during this Reporting Period.

Measure # Units

kW Demand Savings per unit

kWh Energy Savings per unit

Measure Life

(yrs.)

Total Annual MWh

Total Lifetime

MWh

Total kW Demand

Variable Speed Pump 3,858 0.44 1,552 10 5,988 59,876 1,698 Timers 7 0.15 1,080 10 8 76 1

Total 3,865 5,995 59,952 1,699 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (Energy 7.0%, Demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%.



Page 30 of 99

Total savings from the Consumer Products Program during this Reporting Period are shown in the table below.

Measure Total Annual MWh Total Lifetime MWh Total kW Demand CFLs 136,779 855,766 13,204 Pools 5,995 59,952 1,699

TOTAL 142,774 915,718 14,903

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results • Continued to review and update CFL, Pool Pump, and Seasonal Pool Timer Measure Analysis

Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on Consumer Products Program components in the design tool to support the implementation plan.

• Developed savings and cost assumptions for new Light Emitting Diode (“LED) and 2x Incandescent measure offerings.

• Continued field metering of power consumption and runtime behavior of residential pool pumps, including single, dual and variable speed pumps.

• Conducted mystery shopping study to investigate program promotion and effects of Title 44 on sales of single, dual and variable speed pumps.

• Planned Focus Group of pool technicians to identify impacts of training on calibration of program variable speed pumps.

• Continued research to determine net-to-gross effects and market influence for pool components of the program.

Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 8, and 9. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No problems were encountered during this Reporting Period.



Page 31 of 99

Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below. DSM Program

Rebates & Incentives

Training & Technical Assistance

Consumer Education


Program Marketing

Planning & Admin. Total Cost

CFLs $3,712,097 $0 ($20,000) $1,849,496 $241,558 $309,843 $6,092,994 Pools $1,004,214 $37 $0 $597,107 $34,632 $79,085 $1,715,074 Consumer Products Total

$4,716,311 $37 ($20,000) $2,446,603 $276,190 $388,928 $7,808,068

Note: The table above reflects a budget report discrepancy of $145,614 from the marketing category that should have been shifted into the Implementation category. If cross-referenced to work papers, the category totals for both Implementation and Marketing – in the work papers - will show different totals equal to the $145,614 discrepancy. This Implementation charge was mistakenly entered into our Accounting system as a Marketing expense. The tables above reflect correct category numbers.

DSM Program

Implementation

(Contractor)

Implementation

(APS)


CFLs $1,712,718 $136,778 $1,849,496 Pools $581,259 $15,848 $597,107 Consumer Products Total $2,293,977 $152,626 $2,446,603 Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report for this Reporting Period. Other Significant Information APS continued a CFL recycling program in partnership with participating retailers and Veolia Environmental Services, which operates a recycling facility in Phoenix. Customers can take their burned out CFLs to participating retail locations (including select Ace, True Value and Home Depot stores) throughout the APS service territory for free recycling. Retailers collect the CFLs and then send them to Veolia, where more than 99% of all materials, including the trace amounts of mercury in CFLs, are reused. The program conducted retailer visits and retailer trainings during the Reporting Period to educate retail sales staff, assess inventories of merchandise, check point of purchase displays, address availability of qualified product, and communicate with retail sales staff. In addition to the bulb sales at retail locations, APS has purchased a supply of CFLs to use for the low income program and for customer education and awareness building purposes. APS uses these bulbs for direct installation through the APS Low Income Weatherization program (two bulbs provided for each home that is weatherized) and to hand out at local community events and other opportunities to educate the public about CFLs. APS conducted 183 community education and customer outreach events during this reporting period to promote the CFL program and educate customers about APS programs, rebates, and opportunities for saving energy and money. For a comprehensive list of events and dates, please refer to the work-papers provided to ACC Staff.



Page 32 of 99

Advertising and article placements for the CFL program element included the following:

• Ran TV spots featuring CFL program messages on Cox Cable, local sports broadcasts (Diamondbacks, Suns) and KNXV TV.

• Maintained a tool on aps.com called the “CFL Calculator.” www.aps.com/main/various/CFL/calculator.html?source=hme. The tool provides customers with a way to enter all of the light fixtures in their home and see the savings in dollars and greenhouse gas emissions they could achieve by switching to CFLs. The calculator provides recommendations for which type of CFL should be used to replace each bulb in a home and then the tool will print out a custom shopping list for customers to use to purchase exactly the bulbs they need at the store.

• CFL radio spots aired on local sports broadcasts and local news talk radio. • Information on the homepage of aps.com including a listing of all participating retail locations

and a retail locator function that shows that closest stores for any customer throughout the service area based on entering a zip code.

• Public relations and earned media including TV, radio and print articles. • Articles in the Lifestyles Residential newsletter. • Point of sale signage at all participating retail locations.

In addition, the program conducted a wide range of marketing and advertising activities to raise awareness about the pools element of the program including:

• Provided program brochure for consumers. • Maintained program web pages on aps.com including basic information about the program,

online application forms, video content, answers to frequently asked questions, and a list of all participating pool retailers and professionals.

• Produced collateral for in-store point-of-sale materials, including many different styles and sizes of in-store signage.

• Conducted a summer campaign with the APS call center to inform associates about energy efficient pool pumps and provide them with a letter that they could send to prospective customers with pools who were interested in the pools program.

http://www.aps.com/main/various/CFL/calculator.html?source=hme�



Page 33 of 99

PROGRAM: REFRIGERATOR RECYCLING PROGRAM Description The program is designed to educate APS customers that their old, operating, extra refrigerator or freezer uses a great deal of energy and that by turning it in, they can save up to $100 per year on their electric bill. Many refrigerators and freezers being replaced are still functioning and often end up as secondary units in basements and garages, or are sold in the used appliance market. This program provides customers an incentive to remove their old, inefficient appliances from the grid. APS customers with an old operating extra refrigerator can receive a $30 rebate with free pick up service at the customers’ convenience that can be scheduled either online at aps.com/turnitin or by calling toll free 877-514-6654. APS partners with JACO Environmental, Inc. to provide the free pick up and recycling service. The APS Refrigerator Recycling Program began on February 1, 2010. This program was approved by Decision No. 71444, December 23, 2009. The primary focus for 2012 has been on program awareness and marketing. The marketing strategy emphasizes education to the customer about the inefficiency of their second working refrigerator or freezer, the $30 rebate, and the free pickup service provided. As a result of creating this program, a recycling facility has been established in Phoenix where up to 95% of appliance elements are recycled and used to manufacture other products. Additionally, 20 new “green” jobs have been created to staff and operate the new recycling facility. During the recycling process, JACO Environmental safely disposes of all refrigerators and freezers preventing the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment. Program Eligibility Requirements: • Must be a current APS customer and the unit must be owned by customer. • Refrigerator/freezer must be operable (maintain a cold temperature). • Refrigerator/freezer must be plugged in (cold inside) and empty. • Refrigerator/freezer must be a standard size (between 10 – 30 cubic feet). • There must be a clear pathway to pick up and remove appliance. • There is a maximum of two units per household per year. • Someone 18 years or older must be present to sign and release unit. Program Modifications No program or measures were modified during this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The program objective is to educate APS customers that their second, older, working refrigerator or freezer in the garage or laundry room is costing them an additional $100 per year in energy costs to

http://www.aps.com/turnitin�



Page 34 of 99

operate. Refrigerators and freezers today are much more energy-efficient than models built prior to 1993,and models sold today use about 1/3 the energy of older units. The 2012 program goal was to recycle 9,700 units with approximately 14,700 MWhs saved. In this reporting period, 9,464 units were recycled resulting in EE savings that reduce peak demand by approximately 2.1 MWs and saving 71,241 lifetime MWhs. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs/measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation During this Reporting Period, APS recycled 9,464 refrigerators and freezers, and paid $284,002 in incentives to customers. Units were picked up across APS’s service territory statewide. Year-end volume totals came in at 98% of target, which was very close to the 9,700 unit goal. JACO Environmental entered into a partnership with Sears in November 2010. The purpose of the agreement was to add value and convenience to customers when they purchase a new refrigerator or freezer. At the point of sale, the customer will receive a special sticker to place on their old unit providing the ability to track APS retail units separately.

Upon delivery of a new refrigerator or freezer, Sears will pick up the customer’s old (now secondary) appliance, saving them the hassle of making another appointment to schedule a refrigerator recycling pickup. This ensures that the old unit does not end up in the secondary market, or a garage or laundry room plugged in. The customer receives the $30 rebate from JACO through normal operating channels. These units are taken to a Sears containment facility where JACO picks up the stickered refrigerators and freezers once a week for recycling and processing. During this Reporting Period, APS recycled 674 units picked up through Sears. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Continued to review and update program Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and the Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on Appliance Recycling Program components in the design tool to support the implementation plan.

• Continued review of the implementation program tracking database.

• Completed research to determine customer satisfaction, hours of use, and process improvements.



Page 35 of 99


Program

Number of Units

Recycled

Annual kWh Savings Per

Unit

TOTAL Annual MWh

Savings


TOTAL Lifetime

MWh


TOTAL MW

SavingsRefrigerators 8,375 1,289 10,795 6 64,772 0.2 1.8Freezers 1089 990 1,078 6 6,469 0.2 0.2

TOTAL 9,464 11,873 71,241 2.1MER savings are adjusted for line losses (Energy 7.0%, Demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%.

Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5, and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions During this Reporting Period, the program has been implemented efficiently through JACO Environmental, the implementation contractor. No problems were encountered during this Reporting Period. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

DSM Program

Incentives


Assistance

Consumer Education

Program

Implementation

Program

Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program

Total Cost APS Refrigerator Recycling

$284,002

$0

$0

$757,111

$98,683

$58,782

$1,198,578

DSM Program

Implementation

(Contractor)

Implementation

(APS)


Refrigerator Recycling $742,924 $14,187 $757,111 Commission Decision No. 73089, requires APS to report spending for non-EE measures in the Appliance Recycling Program. There were no non-EE measures or associated spending in this program during this Reporting Period. Findings from Research Projects No findings to report at this time. Other Significant Information

• Program marketing efforts during this Reporting Period include the following: o Bill inserts o Newsletter articles o E-mail newsletters o Radio advertising (English/Spanish)



Page 36 of 99

o Messaging on Telemundo and Univision o Call Center marketing campaign

. • Based on customer feedback, APS has developed and implemented a process that provides

customers the option to donate their $30 refrigerator recycling rebate to The Salvation Army’s Project S.H.A.R.E. (Service to Help Arizonans with Relief on Energy). On average, 4% of participating customers (341 customers) donated their rebates for a total of $10,230 donated to the Salvation Army in 2012 from this program.



Page 37 of 99

PROGRAM: BEHAVIORAL PROGRAM Description The Residential Conservation Behavior Pilot Program provides participating Residential customers with bi-monthly reports containing information designed to motivate them to change their energy usage behavior to save energy. To drive conservation behavior, this program direct mails comparative Home Energy Reports to Pilot participants that show how the energy usage in that customer’s home compares with similar homes. Coupled with the comparison data, customers receive recommendations for specific and targeted actions they can take to save energy. Derived from best practices in behavioral science research, this program uses the power of normative messaging to successfully engage and motivate conservation actions of targeted individuals. Comparing an individual’s energy use to what is “normal” has proven to be an effective mechanism to attract attention and motivate action. Normative messaging on energy use, combined with recommendations on how to improve, is the basis of the concept for the Conservation Behavior program. The program provides a benchmark for customers to achieve, and instills a sense of competition to produce sustained conservation behaviors. Program Modifications There were no program modifications to report this Reporting Period. In 2013, APS plans to change all similar home language reports to neighbor language to increase program saving’s potential by as much as 0.5% with no additional cost and minimal impact to report recipients. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The goal of this Program is to use scientifically proven normative messaging techniques to motivate Program participants to save energy by changing their energy use behavior. APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimated that the EE savings from the Behavioral Program could reduce peak demand by approximately 4.3 MW and save 31,000 annual MWh. Actual results indicate 3.9 MW and 23,543 MWh saved in this Reporting Period. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.



Page 38 of 99

Levels of Participation The 2012 program targeted 80,000 Residential (both single and multi-family) customers with a control group of an additional 40,000 customers. Customers were able to “opt out” of the program at any time. Three hundred eighty three (383) participants have opted out of the program in 2012. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Continued to review and update program Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on Residential Behavior components of program design tool in implementation plan.

• Continued analysis of hourly interval consumption data to determine coincident demand impacts from program participants.

• Reviewed model employed by implementation contractor to assess accuracy and reasonableness of model outputs.

• Conducted benefit-cost analysis for residential behavioral program. MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings

ProgramNumber of

Participants

Annual kWh

Savings Per Unit

Total Annual MWh

Savings

Est. Measure

Life (yrs.)

TOTAL Lifetime

MWh


TOTAL MW

SavingsConservation Behavior 77,900 302 23,543 1 23,543 0.05 3.9

MER savings are adjusted for line losses (Energy 7.0%, Demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions There have been no problems encountered with implementation of this Program during the Reporting Period.



Page 39 of 99

Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

DSM Program

Incentives


Assistance

Consumer Education

Program

Implementation

Program

Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program

Total Cost Conservation Behavior

$0

$0

$0

$816,653

$0

$54,743

$871,396

DSM Program

Implementation

(Contractor)

Implementation

(APS)

Program

Implementation Conservation Behavior $812,635 $4,018 $816,653

Findings from Research Projects A detailed measurement, evaluation and research report titled “Demand Side Management Residential Conservation Behavior Pilot Program” was filed on October 1, 2012. This report details all of the evaluation and monitoring activities conducted on this Program in this Reporting Period. Other Significant Information: In addition to conservation behavior savings, one of the key benefits of this program is that it offers a great vehicle for promoting the wide array of APS rebate programs in the tips offered on each report. Marketing and Communications: Outside of the direct mailed reports and the portal, there are no additional marketing or communications to customers in this program.



Page 40 of 99

PROGRAM: MULTIFAMILY ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROGRAM Description The Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program (“MEEP”) is a program that encourages EE improvements in multifamily complexes within the APS service territory. The MEEP received ACC approval on January 6, 2012 in Decision No. 72060. MEEP uses a three-track approach to promote EE within the multifamily market segment.

• Track 1 provides free direct install components to retrofit the Residential dwellings of existing communities. Participating communities will receive enough CFLs, low flow showerheads, and faucet aerators to retrofit every community dwelling. Facility personnel, with implementation contractor field support, will conduct all direct install installations.

• Track 2 will utilize APS Solutions for Business programs to provide complementary energy assessments of the community commercial facilities. The energy assessment will identify opportunities for additional EE savings and the applicable Solutions for Business incentives that are available.

• Track 3 targets new construction and major renovation multifamily projects. This track

builds from the success of the APS ENERGY STAR® Homes program and encourages

energy efficient building principles by paying an incentive to builders on a per unit basis for following a list of EE measures outlined in one of four builder option packages (“BOP”).

• Larger incentives are offered for achieving increasingly higher levels of EE.

Program Modifications A redesigned MEEP new construction program was introduced in 2012. The redesign included a new BOP structure that featured a prescriptive path with both mandatory and optional measures as well as a performance path that utilizes Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Scores to achieve compliance. The new BOPs and compliance paths were designed to provide builders and developers flexibility in meeting program requirements. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Objectives, Goals and Savings Targets The MEEP program objectives are to:

• Reduce peak demand and overall energy consumption in the multifamily housing market segment.

• Promote existing community EE retrofits of both dwelling units and common areas. • Promote higher efficiency construction standards in the development of new multifamily

projects.



Page 41 of 99

• Increase overall awareness about the importance and benefits of EE improvements to the landlord and property ownership community.

• Contribute to meeting the energy savings goals in the APS EE program portfolio. The MEEP’s 2012 program goal is to enroll 7,329 total participants. This number includes 7,100 dwelling retrofits and 229 new construction/major renovation dwellings. The MEEP 2012 energy savings targets are provided below: Annual Coincident Peak Demand Savings* 504 kW Annual Energy Savings 5,728 MWh Lifetime Energy Savings 49,385 MWh *Including line losses and reserve margin

Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation A total of 39 multifamily properties participated in the direct install program in 2012 totaling 5,533 apartment dwellings. All totaled 49,924 CFLs, 7,789 faucet aerators, and 4,531 showerheads were installed in multifamily dwellings. The New Construction/Major renovation program saw three projects participate in 2012. Two new construction projects and one major renovation project. A total of 200 units received rebates in 2012. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Continued to review and update the program Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on MEEP components of the program design tool in support of the implementation plan.

• Continued review of implementation program tracking database.

• Conducted interviews with participant builders and direct installation participants to assess market baselines, evaluate program process and determine net-to-gross effects and market influence of the program.



Page 42 of 99



Annual kWh

Savings per Unit

Total Annual MWh

Savings

Est. Measure

Life

Total Lifetime

MWh

Coin. kW

Demand Savings Per Unit

Total Demand

MW Savings

Showerheads 4,531 467.34 2,118 10 21,175 0.0106 0.05 Faucet Aerators 7,789 55.47 432 10 4,321 0.0012 0.01 CFLs 49,924 48.15 2,404 6 14,423 0.0051 0.26 BOP 1 0 1,565.08 0 14 0 0.5754 0.00 BOP 2 60 1,905.27 114 14 1,600 0.6025 0.04 BOP 3 60 2,446.86 147 14 2,055 0.6861 0.04 BOP Renovation 80 2,072.62 166 14 2,321 0.3866 0.03

Total 62,444 5,380 45,896 0.42 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 8, and 9. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions Nothing to report this period. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

Rebates & Incentives



Program Implement

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin

Program Total Cost

$314,649 $45 $0 $838,093 $9,337 $108,244 $1,270,368

DSM Program Implementation

(Contractor) Implementation

(APS) Program

Implementation

Multifamily EE Program $640,628 $197,465 $838,093 Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report this period. Other Significant Information MEEP marketing and consumer education efforts for this Reporting Period include:

• Distribution of a MEEP and MEEP New Construction brochures to customers.



Page 43 of 99

• Maintained a presence on aps.com to give customers a point of reference for all program information.

• Provided customer educational leave behind materials promoting EE in all dwellings that were retrofitted.

• MEEP presentations at community events. • Hosted a community event for tenants at a MEEP supported newly constructed community.

Advertising and Marketing Activities

New Marketing Materials • MEEP new construction event poster • MEEP new construction project site banners • Created large foam board check presentation checks

Advertising Activities • Direct Call outreach was utilized to get program messaging out in the market place and to

secure many of the program’s participants. • Direct mail outreach was used to secure direct install participants.

Design Incentive No Multifamily projects received design incentives in 2012. MEEP New Construction Optional Measures Installed In Decision No. 73089, APS was directed to report energy savings, coincident demand savings, and actual costs for each prescriptive path optional measure selected by Multifamily New construction participants. Because all three projects that received rebates in 2012 achieved program compliance through the performance path, no prescriptive path optional measures were installed.



Page 44 of 99

PROGRAM: SHADE TREES PROGRAM Description The Shade Tree program provides free shade trees to APS’s Residential customers that have attended an APS Shade Tree workshop or participated in an online training. The program educates customers on successful tree planting and care techniques, and provides a customer specific site map indicating the ideal tree planting location(s) to help reduce customer cooling needs. Customers can qualify to receive between two (homes built after 1980) and three (homes built prior to 1980) free shade trees per residence. This program is available to Residential customers in Maricopa County. Program Eligibility Requirements:

• Must be a current APS Residential customer living in Maricopa County. • Must be able to plant the trees approximately 15 feet away from the western, eastern or

southern side of their home. • Must have the legal right to plant the trees on the property. • Must have the ability to care for the trees as needed. • Must attend an APS Shade Tree workshop or receive equivalent training online.

Program Modifications An online delivery model for the program was tested in 2012. A total of 163 customers participated online and 315 trees were distributed. Trees were distributed at three fall shade tree workshops. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The goal of this program is to encourage customers, through education and incentives, to plant shade trees in areas near their homes to reduce home cooling needs. The program goal was to distribute 5,000 trees in 2012. APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan approved by the ACC, in Decision No. 72215, estimated that the EE savings expected to result from the Shade Tree Pilot Program could reduce peak demand annually by approximately 0.23 MW and save 13,650 MWhs over the life of the measures installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs/measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation A total of 5,237 trees were distributed in 2012 to Maricopa County Residential customers. A total of 4,922 were distributed using in-person workshops and 315 were distributed through the online program. A total of 8 shade tree educational workshops were held throughout the year (4 in the Spring and 4 in the Fall) where a total of 2,129 participants were educated.



Page 45 of 99

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results • Continued to review and update the program Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic

Database.

• Provided guidance on the Shade Tree components of the program design tool to support the implementation plan.

• Performed on-site inspections at program participant properties to determine compliance with suggested program planting requirements, and to inform impact analysis.

• Conducted an on-line survey with program participants to support impact analysis, assess customer satisfaction, and identify process improvements.


MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 8, and 9. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions There were no problems encountered with implementation during the Reporting Period. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

DSM Program

Incentives


Assistance

Consumer Education

Program

Implementation

Program

Marketing

Planning

& Admin.

Program

Total Cost

Shade Trees

$41,546

$0

$1,691

$196,447

$1,027

$23,944

$264,655

DSM Program Implementation (Contractor)


Program

Implementation Shade Trees $131,316 $65,131 $196,447

Findings from Research Projects A detailed measurement, evaluation and research report titled “Demand Side Management Shade Trees Program” was filed with the Commission on May 9, 2012 in Docket No. E-01345A-10-0219 with the Commission.

DSM Program

Number of Units

Annual kWh

Savings Per Unit

TOTAL Annual MWh

Savings


TOTAL Lifetime

MWh


TOTAL MW

Savings

Shade Trees

5,237

91

477

30

14,297

0.05

0.24



Page 46 of 99

Other Significant Information The shade tree education and outreach includes workshop curriculum development that was vetted with local arborists with the following designations: • International Society of Arboriculture (“ISA”) Certified Arborist • ISA Certified Arborist/Utility Specialist • ISA Certified Arborist/Municipal Specialist Each participant receives the following materials in an educational workshop packet: • Aerial photo of his/her home with the ideal EE planting locations highlighted • Program participation form • Workshop evaluation form • Blue Stake Guide • Right Tree, Right Place brochure • Detailed watering guide published by the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association

In addition to the materials listed above, additional resources including a copy of the curriculum, tree information and helpful links are provided on aps.com. Marketing Materials

• Created instructional video for aps.com and the online training module • Created new signage and collaterals to promote Spanish workshops • Issued press releases promoting workshops

Advertising

• Flyer distributed at local events and communities • aps.com • Call Center referrals • Page one bill message for metro Phoenix zip codes • Contractor messaging to their member groups • Local area sustainability program newsletter publications • Targeted direct mail campaign to limited income customers



Page 47 of 99

PROGRAM: ENERGY WISE LOW INCOME WEATHERIZATION Description APS’s Energy Wise Low Income Assistance Program is designed to improve the EE, safety and health attributes of homes for customers whose income falls within the defined federal poverty guidelines. This program serves low income customers with various home improvements including cooling system repair and replacement, insulation, sunscreens, water heaters, window repairs and improvements as well as other general repairs. In addition, low income families are provided crisis bill assistance. The program is administered by various community action agencies throughout APS’s service territory. Program Modifications No modifications for this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives, and Savings Targets • To improve the EE of homes for customers whose income falls within the defined poverty

guidelines. • To provide customers information on energy management and conservation. • To provide assistance in paying the electric bill for qualified customers in crisis situations. • Decision No. 68647 acknowledged the estimates that the Weatherization component of the

Energy Wise Program could serve 382 homes per year (based on APS’s annual budget of $705,000) and result in reduced energy consumption of 763 MWh per year and a demand reduction of 115 kW per year.

The goals for the APS Energy Wise Low Income Weatherization program specified in APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimates that the EE savings expected to result from the Low Income Program could reduce peak demand by about 0.2 MW and 30,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.



Page 48 of 99

Levels of Participation A total of 1,474 households received assistance during the Reporting Period. A single household may have received more than one type of assistance.

Type of Assistance Number of Households

Bill Assistance 622 Health and Safety 0 Repair and Replace 0 Weatherization 852 Total 1,474

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results Weatherization measures must pass the cost effectiveness test that is detailed in the federal government's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) rules. These rules allow certain prescriptive measures, which vary with the climate zone and type of housing construction. Measures not on the prescriptive list must be assessed by a computer analysis to determine the economic feasibility. The Arizona Governor’s Office of Energy Policy (“GOEP”), with information from APS, is analyzing the electric energy used in weatherized homes before and after the weatherization measures are implemented. It takes a year of data before the weatherization and another year of data after the weatherization to get an accurate gauge of the impact of the measures. As the data base grows over time, a more accurate picture of the impact of the weatherization activities will emerge. Information from the GOEP report for fiscal year 2012, submitted January 2013 is provided below:

Utility Bill Analysis An analysis of 257 homes has been completed from July 2007 through July 2012, utilizing APS, Tucson Electric Power, Unisource Gas and Electric and Southwest Gas utility data. This analysis is ongoing, new data will be updated to these values on a quarterly basis. Provided are Savings to Investment Ratios (“SIR”) for total investment from all funding spent (diagnostics, energy measures and health and safety measures) and for energy related measures only (diagnostics and energy measures). Assumptions Present value is based on 17.5 years measure life, discount rate of 3% and a utility cost escalation rate of 3%. Results Summary The combined SIR of all jobs reviewed to date for funds spent on diagnostics, energy measures and health and safety measures was 1.21. Health and Safety represented 16% of expenditures.



Page 49 of 99

The combined SIR of all jobs reviewed to date for funds spent on energy measures and diagnostics was 1.38. The average saving per home reviewed was 2,746 kWh and 35 therms of natural gas (gas therms average includes all electric homes).

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings Of the 1,474 households participating in the program, a total of 852 homes received weatherization services that contributed to the energy savings.

No. of Homes Annual kW Savings Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings852 286 2,503,363 43,808,860

MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. The kW factor used to calculate the savings are based on data from the Arizona Energy Office study of 257 weatherized homes. The study normalized electric and gas savings into dollars with gas savings equaling about 10% of the total. The present value of the dollar savings was converted to “equivalent kWh” at 8 cents per kWh. The annual energy demand savings per home in this study are estimated to be 0.3 kW. A 17.5 years measure life and kWh savings factor of 2746 kWh per home, based on the current GOEP report, has been utilized to determine the appropriate kWh savings. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The net benefits for this program are provided in Tables 5, and 6. The Performance Incentive calculation does not include the Energy Wise Program because, as indicated in Decision No. 68647, this program has a zero net benefit. Consequently, the net benefits for the Energy Wise Program for this Reporting Period as shown in Table 5 are $0. However, the spending on the Energy Wise Low Income Weatherization Program is included in the total spending, on which the performance incentive is calculated. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions The American Recovery and Renewal Act (“ARRA”) weatherization funding impacted the APS Energy Wise Weatherization program up until March when the program ended. The temporary slowdown in utility weatherization program activities was a direct result of the agencies focus on spending the ARRA funds before March. Nonetheless, the agencies were able to expend most of the funding by year end.



Page 50 of 99

Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during the current Reporting Period are listed below:

ActivityRebates & Incentives



Program Implement

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin

Program Total Cost

Bill Assistance $195,884 - $10,154 $47,646 $253,684Health & Safety - - - - - $0Repair and Replace - - - - - $0Weatherization $2,038,336 $11,085 $7,315 $72,600 $2,129,3363rd Party Manager - Arizona Community Action Association - - - $50,000 - - $50,000

Total $2,234,220 $11,085 $0 $50,000 $17,469 $120,246 $2,433,020 - $0APS Program Support - - -

This table displays all Energy Wise Program costs, including Health and Safety, and Repair and Replace. However, these categories are not included in Table 1. Measures: Health and Safety, Repair and Replace Components

Measure Health and Safety Repair and Replace Air Conditioner 0 0 Heat Pump 0 0 Evaporative Cooler 0 0 Refrigerators 0 0 Water Heaters 0 0

Commission Decision No. 73089, requires APS to report spending for non-EE measures in the Energy Wise Program. There were no non-EE measures or associated spending in this program during this Reporting Period. Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report during this period. Other Significant Information Program marketing efforts included:

• Weatherization outreach and field visits to participating CAP offices • Participation in Hopefest 2012 at Chase Field, April 14, 2012 • Meeting with El Mirage City Council to discuss program, May 15, 2012 • Presentation and booth at Community Action Human Resources Resource Roundup, June 1,

2012 • Weatherization Program overview to Sun City CAN, June 7, 2012 • Meeting with Navajo Nation representatives to discuss weatherization, August, 27, 2012 • APS Unity in the Community Limited Income Summit, October 5, 2012 • Flagstaff Unity in the Community Presentation, November 6, 2012



Page 51 of 99

PROGRAM: NON-RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM FOR LARGE EXISTING FACILITIES Description The Large Existing Facilities Program provides prescriptive incentives for owners and operators of large (over 100 kW aggregated peak monthly demand) Non-Residential facilities for EE improvements in technologies such as lighting, HVAC, motors and refrigeration applications. The Direct Install approach is available for facilities which are individually metered with a peak demand of 400 kW and less. For EE applications not covered by the prescriptive incentives, the program offers custom incentives, which are evaluated individually based on energy savings. The program also provides incentives to reduce the cost of an energy study that identifies energy saving opportunities. The program provides educational and promotional pieces designed to assist facility and business owners and operators in making decisions to improve the EE of their facilities. Program Modifications APS made the following implementation changes based on the approval of new measures per the Decisions cited below. ACC Decision No. 73089, dated April 4, 2012 approved the addition of the following measures to the prescriptive program:

• Energy Management System (“EMS”) – DDC Replacing Pneumatic or Manual T-stat

• EMS – DDC Replacing Programmable T-stat or digital system • EMS – Integrated Lighting Control • LED – non-reflector lamp • LED – reflector lamp • LED – MR16 • LED Pedestrian Signal with or without countdown • Refrigerated Case LED with motion sensor • Refrigerated Case LED without motion sensor



Page 52 of 99

ACC Decision No. 73089, requires APS to report EMS and LED measures , annual savings, capacity savings, and measure life to be reported individually . See the table below

Measure Qty kWh

Savings kW

Savings Measure Life EMS - DDC Replacing Pneumatic or Manual T-stat 2,137,286 8,698,756

- 13

EMS - DDC Replacing Programmable T-stat or digital system 2,358,179 7,664,083

- 13

EMS - Integrated Lighting Control 121,187 156,331 - 10

LED - non-reflector 14,713 3,420,429

782.72 7

LED - reflector 4,309 798,932

237.43 7

LED - MR16 4,756 626,223

196.42 7 In an effort to reduce total program cost, the following program changes were implemented, and communicated at a trade ally workshop, held on April 4th, 2012.

• Custom incentive reduced from $0.11/kWh to $0.09/kWh • T8 to Premium T8 (4-foot lamps) reduced from $8/lamp to $4/lamp • Induction Lighting

o MH ≥70w ≤200w to Induction ≤ 100w reduced from $75/fixture to $55/fixture o HPS ≥100w ≤200w to Induction ≤ 100w reduced from $75/fixture to $55/fixture o MH >200w ≤250w to Induction ≤ 160w reduced from $150/fixture to $115/fixture o HPS >200w ≤400w to Induction ≤ 160w reduced from $150/fixture to $115/fixture

• Chillers o Air-Cooled Chillers < 150 tons

Equipment Incentive reduced from $7/ton to $5.25/ton Efficiency Incentive reduced from $300/ton to $225/ton

o Air-Cooled Chillers ≥ 150 tons Equipment Incentive reduced from $10/ton to $7.50/ton Efficiency Incentive reduced from $300/ton to $225/ton

o Water-Cooled Chillers < 150 tons Equipment Incentive reduced from $7/ton to $5.25/ton Efficiency Incentive reduced from $300/ton to $225/ton

o Water-Cooled Chillers ≥ 150 tons < 300 tons Equipment Incentive reduced from $7/ton to $5.25/ton Efficiency Incentive reduced from $300/ton to $225/ton

o Water-Cooled Chillers ≥ 300 tons Equipment Incentive reduced from $10/ton to $7.50/ton



Page 53 of 99

Efficiency Incentive reduced from $300/ton to $225/ton • Economizer incentive reduced from $40/ton to $25/ton • CO2 Sensor incentive reduced from $200/sensor to $120/sensor • Motors must now exceed NEMA Premium efficiency, rather than meet it, to qualify for an

incentive • Retro-Commissioning Incentive changed from 75% of cost up to $20,000 to the lesser of

$0.09/kWh, 75% of cost, or $20,000. For projects with minimal kWh savings, the minimum incentive will be 50% of the retro-commissioning cost up to $10,000

On July 11, 2012 the following incentive change took place:

• Ice Machine incentive reduced from $300/unit to $20/unit for 1-100lbs, $50/unit for 101-200 lbs, $75/unit for 201-300 lbs, and $100/unit for 301-1,500 lbs.

On the Express Solutions program, for large, non-school customers (101 – 400 kW) the following incentive changes were made on March 8, 2012:

• Refrigeration measures reduced from $0.20/kWh to $0.09/kWh • T12 to T8 Premium reduced from $0.175/kWh to $0.155/kWh • T8 to T8 Premium reduced from $0.25/kWh to $0.18/kWh • T8 to T8 Premium w/de-lamping reduced from $0.19/kWh to $0.17/kWh • Exit Signs reduced from $0.15/kWh to $0.11/kWh

In addition to these changes, the Bid-for-Efficiency Pilot was suspended. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets

• Promote and support EE opportunities for existing large Non-Residential customers. • Promote the installation of high-efficiency technologies including, but not limited to lighting,

HVAC equipment, motors, and refrigeration systems. • Promote market transformation through APS trade allies, customer outreach and technical

training classes. APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimated that the EE savings from the Large Existing Program could reduce annual peak demand by about 21.0 MW, 152,000 MWh annually, and 2,046,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. However, the Bid-for-Efficiency Pilot was suspended. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.



Page 54 of 99

Levels of Participation The Large Existing Facilities Program has been the strongest performing Non-Residential program since its inception. During this Reporting Period, APS paid $17,245,333 in Large Existing program incentives. This represents a total of 1,856 active applications from 594 unique customers and includes projects implemented through Direct Install. Payments to School Districts and charter schools comprised 150 of the 1,856 applications.

Incentive Status by Fund for Active Applications Incentives Paid

Large Existing – Prescriptive & Custom $16,553,011

Large Existing – Studies $380,623

Large Existing – Retro commissioning Studies $311,700 Total Large Existing Funds $17,245,333

In Decision No. 70637, the ACC approved APS’s request to continue to track DSM applications resulting from studies for which incentives have been paid, and to report the semi-annual and cumulative results of its program-to-date. During this Reporting Period, APS paid a total of $692,323 for 96 study applications from 34 customers. During this reporting period, sixty-eight feasibility studies were paid a total of $378,723, twelve benchmarking studies were paid a total of $1,900, and sixteen retro commissioning studies were paid a total incentive of $311,700. Forty-eight of the 96 studies have already resulted in implementation of the associated measures. Since the program’s inception, 283 studies have been completed. Of those 283 studies, 137 have resulted in EE project applications to date. Decision No. 73089, required APS to report the type of measures installed by customers after a study was completed. The following measures were installed for studies completed in 2012: chillers, economizers, HVAC, HVAC controls, interior lighting, motors, programmable thermostats and refrigeration. Self-Direction: On January 23, 2009, the Commission issued Decision No. 71444, which approved Self-Direction. In this Reporting Period one (1) customer participated in Self Direction. The project included the conversion of existing exterior mercury vapor lighting and exterior incandescent lighting to LED lighting on the following mechanical mining shovels: #8, #10, #11, #21, and #22. Shovel #8 included the conversion of interior fluorescent lighting to LED lighting as well.



Page 55 of 99

The total cost of this phase of the project was $107,311.53. Since this change out was done solely for the purpose of saving kWh’s and did not need to be changed out due to a replace on burnout situation, the incremental cost of the project is equivalent to the project cost.

• Total Project Cost: $107,311.53 • Incremental Cost: $107,311.53 • Energy Savings: 172,781 kWh • Demand Savings: 27.35 kW • Environmental Savings (generation-side): 554 tons CO2 • Water Savings: 281,805 gallons

Direct Install The Direct Install measures were launched in April 2009. While these measures are targeted to small businesses, program rules allow small facilities (under 400 kW demand) of large customers to participate. K-12 school buildings of any size can also participate in Direct Install measures. In this Reporting Period, 220 Direct Install projects for Large Existing Facilities were paid a total of $2,026,871 in incentives. Program development and outreach for Direct Install are described in the Small Business section of this Progress Report. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Conducted ongoing review and analysis of participation database.

• Continued to review and update the Non-Residential Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database

• Provided guidance on Large Existing components of the program design tool to support the implementation plan.

• Evaluated savings impacts of a sample of Custom projects through phone interviews and on-site inspection and metering.

• Continued on-site metering of Hotels, School, and Office lighting projects to support assumptions of operation hours, coincidence factors, diversity factors, and installation rates.

• Reviewed invoices, interviewed program contractors, and conducted internet research to update cost estimates for high volume measures including linear fluorescents, occupancy sensors, unitary HVAC equipment, and chillers.

• Conducted process and customer satisfaction surveys of Custom and Large Existing participants.

• Assessed attribution of Technical Assistance offerings on projects implemented outside of the program through document review and participant interviews. Results support on-going net-to-gross and market effects research.



Page 56 of 99

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings The following table reflects the MER adjusted total energy and demand saving achievements in this Reporting Period for the Large Existing Facilities program. Only savings from projects that were completed and incentives paid are counted in this Progress Report. MER Adjusted kW and kWh Gross Savings

kW Savings Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings 26,379 192,263,042 2,530,369,193

MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions There are no new problems to report this period. Costs Incurred During the Reporting Period Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:



Assistance Program

Implementation* Consumer Education

Program Marketing

Planning &

Admin. Program

Total Cost

Large Existing $17,245,333 $247,963 $2,539,924 $4,147 $318,927 $221,821 $20,578,115 * All implementation expenditures are contractor expenses. A breakdown of all implementation contractor expenses for this Reporting Period and program are provided below:

DSM Program IC- Implementation IC- Marketing IC- Education IC- Technical Services IC- Total Cost Large Existing $2,539,924 $318,927 $4,147 $244,062 $3,107,060

Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report during this period. Other Significant Information The focal point of program development activities centered on specific market segments. The program developed technical resources, information, trainings and advertisements to engage and educate these specific segments. The program continued to develop and foster relationships with industry and stakeholder associations to enhance outreach efforts and connections with members. During the Reporting Period, these activities included participation in the following:

• Association of Energy Engineers, AZ Chapter • Association for Construction Excellence • Arizona Association of School Business Officials (“AASBO”)



Page 57 of 99

• American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) • Building Owners and Managers Association (“BOMA”):

o Sponsored a Benchmarking with ENERGY STAR® training; maintained active participation on Green Building Committee; and sponsored BOMA’s Kilowatt Krackdown (ENERGY STAR® portfolio manager program) promotion.

• International Facility Managers Association • Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association – Green Hotel Certification Committee. • Central Arizona Society of Hospital Engineers • Green Chamber of Commerce • 24/7 (IT-focused association) – attended meetings in first quarter • Valley Forward – participated in meetings; staff served as 2012 Energy Committee co-chair. • United States Green Building Council (“USGBC”)

Trade Ally Network: Trade allies are contractors and other industry professionals who deliver EE solutions to customers. The program incorporates a Trade Ally program to ensure an informed and engaged network of service providers. To be listed as a Solutions for Business Trade Ally, a company must submit an application and attend program training which includes prescriptive application instruction. To remain on the list, the company must participate in the rebate program and attend an annual training. As a result of the program’s focus on trade ally development and recruiting efforts, 16 new trade allies (companies) were approved during this Reporting Period; 59 were dropped for lack of participation. At the end of this Reporting Period the program had a total of 266 trade allies (companies). Trade Ally Outreach The Trade Ally program continues to generate interest from a variety of industry professionals. These professionals must attend a training session to learn about the Solutions for Business program and the benefits of becoming a program trade ally. This meeting is offered free of charge, as is prescriptive application training, custom application training and meetings to assist with application preparation. Trade Ally Orientations were suspended for the last quarter of this reporting period. Outreach is conducted through strategic partnerships with professional associations within the energy and contracting industry as well as trade show and event participation and program advertisements. These efforts were scaled back during 2012 to concentrate on high quality participants. Program trade allies received two editions of the Solutions for Business Trade Ally Newsletter during this Reporting Period. Newsletter articles provided program updates, links to useful program information and information on upcoming events and training opportunities. Additional trade ally development opportunities centered on technical support to new and existing trade allies with an enhanced focus on encouraging program participation, increasing program knowledge and improving the quality of incentive applications submitted by trade allies. Both Prescriptive Application (required) and Custom Application (encouraged) Training classes were



Page 58 of 99

offered, as they proved valuable in improving both contractor interaction with customers and application quality. Efforts to develop and leverage the existing trade ally network included program training opportunities, technical training classes, trade ally events and program participation in trade ally-hosted events and a web-based Trade Ally Web portal. The program regularly refreshed the Trade Ally Web portal with updates to information available on the portal. Training presentations, news updates and other announcements are posted on the portal. Trade Ally Events Participation in Trade Ally Events Solutions for Business program information was provided at the following trade ally attended events:

Jan

Trade Ally Orientation, 18 attendees

Feb Trade Ally Orientation, 24 attendees Prescriptive Application Training, 18 attendees AIA Committee on the Environment Meeting, 12 attendees Association for Construction Excellence, 75 attendees USGBC AZ Annual Conference, 100+ attendees

March Air Conditioning Contractors of America Trade Show, 250 attendees AIA Committee on the Environment Meeting, 12 attendees Trade Ally Orientation, 19 attendees AZ School District Commercial Tune Up Review, 40 attendees

April Annual Trade Ally Event, 250 attendees Trade Ally Orientation, 17 attendees

May Trade Ally Orientation, 25 attendees

June Prescriptive Application Training, 30 attendees

July Prescriptive Application Training, 36 attendees Arizona Association of School Business Officials Conference, 200+ attendees

Aug Prescriptive Application Training, 28 attendees Custom Application training, 10 attendees Electric Service and Design, Lunch & Learn, 15 attendees



Page 59 of 99

Sept Trade Ally Orientation, 15 attendees

Nov American Institute of Architects, AZ Chapter Annual Awards, 100+ attendees

Dec Go Green Conference, 200 customers, hosted booth Siemens Annual Open House, 100 attendees

2. Customer Awareness and Advertising: Marketing and outreach efforts focused on high-value opportunities to raise customer awareness of the program and EE benefits. To accomplish these goals, a variety of marketing tools and channels were used to reach customers and contractors, including print and electronic advertisements, updates to the program website, public relations events and print materials. • Messaging in print advertisements placed during this Reporting Period included:

o Two ads ran in the Phoenix Business Journal featuring messages of appreciation to 2011 participating contractors and to the winners of the 2012 Trade Ally program awards in August.

o A shared message promoting HVAC tune-ups for both commercial and residential customers ran in the ACCA product directory in May/June.

o Electronic banner ads in the Phoenix Business Journal website ran from August through November promoting the message of EE to a wide audience of businesses and customers.

o An ad was placed in the AZRE Magazine in March/April congratulating nominees of the annual RED (Real Estate Development) awards and recognizing the winner of the APS sustainability award.

• Sponsorship of the annual RED awards helped raise awareness in the program and promote EE to the construction and real estate industries through sponsorship of the “most sustainable” project and presentation of annual program highlights during the event to an attendance of more than 400.

• The May APS Success newsletter featured articles developed to promote the nonresidential program to customers receiving the newsletter with their bills.

• Trade allies received program information and updates in two e-newsletters produced and distributed in June and October.

• Program incentives were submitted in July to the ENERGY STAR® Commercial Kitchen Guide for inclusion in online site listings.

• Large checks were produced and printed for presentations to recognize participation and help raise awareness of the program at customer events in 2012 including: the city of Yuma and eBay (July), Somerton Elementary School District (August), the city of Tempe (November) and the Town of Buckeye and Dick’s Sporting Goods (December).

• The annual Arizona Highways calendars project began in October and involved developing artwork promoting the program for the back panel of the calendars and distribution of the calendars to 200 members of the Trade Ally program; APS coordinated distribution of the calendars to more than 900 participating contractors.



Page 60 of 99

• Electronic invitations went out to participating customers, contractors and members of the Trade Ally program promoting training workshops and events, and encouraging attendance throughout the year.

• Program marketing materials and event display items were rebranded in 2012 to bring the print collateral and exhibit materials into compliance with new APS brand standards.

• Poster-size case study displays were developed promoting energy savings by business type (K-12, data centers, office buildings and retail) used at events throughout the year.

• A new case study promoting incentives for LED lighting for the retail market was developed. Market Segmentation APS continues to tailor its marketing and outreach efforts to specific market segments. As a program matures and “early adopters” complete projects, it becomes more challenging to engage participants and achieve energy saving targets. By segmenting the Non-Residential market into more-defined categories, the program can implement targeted and cost-effective strategies to engage customers. The objective is to secure participation by a broader range of eligible customers and to encourage these customers to implement comprehensive projects beneficial to their specific business. The program currently segments Non-Residential customers into 12 categories by business type: college/universities, data centers, government, grocery, hotels, industrial, K-12 schools, medical, office, restaurant, retail and warehouse. The segments align with customer participation trends and demographics. During this Reporting Period, one outreach and one technical staff were assigned to each segment. Each person supports three to four different segments. The assigned staff will provide in-depth knowledge of their particular segments in terms of segment motivators, barriers, procurement process, energy consumption patterns, and appropriate technologies and energy-saving measures. Outreach staff will continue to develop relationships with associations and other industry contacts related to the assigned segments, participate in events and guide development of marketing messages and program tools. Each market segment has an individual savings goal and outreach plan based on historical and current participation, potential, and other market conditions. This will allow APS to better track success within segments and quickly adjust for changing market conditions and opportunities pertaining to these segments. 3. Generate Program Awareness Through Key Events: The program participated in the following trade shows and conferences:

• February 7 – Pinal County Partnership presentation (180 attendees) • February 9 – USGBC Annual Conference attendee (100+ attendees) • February 24 – Beyond the Cloud Tech Event booth (100 attendees) • March 1 – Red Awards, Arizona Real Estate Magazine, sponsor (200 attendees) • March 12 – AIA Reincarnation Tour, participant (65 attendees)



Page 61 of 99

• March 27 – Association of Air Conditioning Contractors Trade Show, booth (250+ attendees) • June 13 – Greater Phoenix Economic Council, presentation (40 people) • July 18/20 – Arizona Association of School Business Officers Annual Conference, booth (1000

attendees) • August 28/29 – Arizona League of Cities and Towns, booth (200+ attendees) • November 3 – American Institute of Architects Annual Awards Program, judge/presenter (200

attendees) • December 6 - Go Green Conference, exhibit ( 200 attendees)

4. Technical Training: Training courses help customers understand technologies and potential for energy savings. This understanding promotes quicker adoption of new technologies and encourages customers to undertake more in-depth and holistic projects. Classes allow interaction among customers, topic experts and contractors who can perform work, thus facilitating the contracting process. Feedback from this educational series indicates that customers are more likely to adopt alternative technology following such presentations and the knowledge gained from them. APS continued to work closely with the Arizona Chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers (“AEE-AZ”) to promote and manage registration of the APS Technical Training series. AEE-AZ provided access to their membership to promote the trainings and the Solutions for Business program and also provided APS with turnkey registration support for the two trainings that occurred during this Reporting Period. Attendance remained strong during this Reporting Period with many repeat attendees. The classes held during this Reporting Period attracted 234 attendees:

• January 25/26 – Motor Systems Management (66 attendees) • April 18/19 – Building Codes ( 80 attendees) • May 8 – Benchmarking with ENERGY STAR with BOMA (16 attendees) • September 13 – Pump Systems ( 65 attendees) • September 25 - Benchmarking with ENERGY STAR with BOMA (7 attendees)

Materials were developed for each training session, including class materials on CDs for participants, class evaluations, invitation fliers, and certificates of completion. Electronic invitations and registrations links were sent to the program’s contact list, the Association of Energy Engineers (“AEE”) member list, the GOEP and APS Key Account Managers. Information on the Solutions for Business program was presented at the training events. The program sponsored the following training organizations and related classes:

• Building Owners & Managers Association – Benchmarking with ENERGY STAR® • Air Conditioning Contractors of America– Professional Air Conditioning Technician Certification • AEE – Certified Energy Manager series



Page 62 of 99

• IKOLOJI-Sustainability Collaborative – Sonoran Sustainable Building Advisor Program APS held three training courses for the revised HVAC Tune-up incentive and using the Stargate testing device. Forty-six contractors, including residential and non-residential, were trained over March 8, 26th and May 2. Solutions for Business staff met with city and county Workforce Development representatives and ASU staff to discuss collaborative efforts on federally funded training courses. APS is supportive of classes and will have limited participation. APS will continue to search out educational efforts that support market transformation among both the public and the trades.



Page 63 of 99

BID FOR EFFICIENCY PILOT Description The Bid for Efficiency pilot was intended to provide alternative incentives to the current Solutions for Business program offerings. During this Reporting Period, this pilot measure was suspended due to lack of need for additional savings to meet the goal. Program Modifications Bid for Efficiency Pilot was suspended in 2012. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets

• Maximize the energy savings that can be attained with available DSM funds by providing incentives to innovative, comprehensive projects that found significant participation barriers in the classic program.

• Provide educational and training materials to facility managers and trade allies in order to aid in the development of proposals.

• Promote new, cost-effective energy savings for Solutions for Business based on realized energy-savings measurements.

Programs or Measures Terminated Bid for Efficiency was suspended during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation In this Reporting Period, no Bid for Efficiency projects were either contracted or completed. Other Significant Information Nothing to report during this Reporting Period.



Page 64 of 99

PROGRAM: NON-RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS Description The Non-Residential New Construction and Major Renovations program includes three components: 1) design assistance components: 1) technical assistance applications (design assistance, feasibility studies, etc.), 2) custom measures, 3) prescriptive measures, and 4) whole building applications (construction & design incentives). Design assistance applications involve efforts to integrate EE into a customer’s design process to influence equipment/systems selection and specification as early in the process as possible. Custom and prescriptive incentives are available for EE improvements in lighting, HVAC, motors and refrigeration applications. Whole building applications are intended to promote integrated design strategies.

Program Modifications See Large Existing section for 2012 program modifications. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets

• Promote integrated design and integrated analysis of alternative high-efficiency design packages through design assistance in new construction and major renovation applications.

• Assist the customer design team in examining alternative high-efficiency design packages through the provision of the design incentive.

• Promote market transformation through APS trade allies, customer outreach and technical training classes

APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimated that the EE savings from the New Construction Program could reduce annual peak demand by about 3.9 MW, 27,000 MWh annually and 410,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation The majority of new construction and major renovation projects under way are choosing the Whole Building application. Many of these new projects are highly energy efficient and will receive significant incentives. In this Reporting Period, APS paid a total of $2,904,519 in New Construction incentives. This represents 93 applications from 39 unique customers. Seven of the 93 applications were from school districts.



Page 65 of 99

Incentive status is provided below.

Incentive Status for Active Applications Incentives Paid

Large New Construction – Prescriptive & Custom $2,835,469 Large New Construction – Studies $69,050 Total Large New Construction Funds $2,904,519

In Decision No. 70637, the Commission ordered APS to continue tracking DSM customer applications resulting from studies for paid incentives, and report the semi-annual and cumulative results of its program-to-date tracking efforts. During this Reporting Period, Seven design assistance studies were paid a total of $52,500, and two commissioning study incentive was paid a total of $16,550. Eight of these nine applications has resulted in EE projects to date. Since program inception, 53 studies have been completed. Of those 53 studies, 33 resulted in applications for EE projects. Commisison Decision No. 73089, required APS to report the type of measures installed subsequent to the receipt of study or design assistance incentives. The following measure types were installed for studies completed in 2012: building envelope, chillers, interior lighting, lighting, motors, and Whole Building. APS Solutions for Business launched the Whole Building incentive in January 2010. During this Reporting Period the program received 36 Pre-Notification applications and eighteen Whole Building projects were paid incentives. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Conducted ongoing review and analysis of the participation database.

• Continued to review and update the Non-Residential Measure Analysis Spreadsheets and Analytic Database.

• Provided guidance on New Construction components of the program design tool to support the implementation plan.

• Assessed attribution of Technical Assistance offerings on projects implemented outside of the program through document review and participant interviews. Results will support on-going net-to-gross and market effects research.


MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings The following table reflects the MER adjusted total energy and demand saving achievements in this Reporting Period for the Large New Construction Program. Only savings from projects that were completed and incentives paid are counted in this Progress Report.



Page 66 of 99

MER Adjusted kW and kWh Gross Savings

kW Savings Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings

4,884 31,904,446 467,011,973 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No new problems to report for this Reporting Period. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:



Program Implementation*

Consumer Education

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

New Construction

2,904,519

33,695 629,120

860

78,230

47,264

3,693,688

All implementation expenditures are contractor expenses. A breakdown of all implementation contractor expenses for this Reporting Period is:

DSM Program IC- Implementation IC- Marketing IC- Education IC- Technical Services IC- Total Cost New Construction 629,120 78,230 860 33,695 741,905

Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report during this Reporting Period. Other Significant Information During this Reporting Period, program development activities focused on following up with projects in progress and increasing program participation. Specific activities are highlighted below. Marketing and Outreach Strategic partnerships continue to play an important role in New Construction outreach. During this Reporting Period, APS agreed to sponsor the Energy Award at the annual awards of the AIA. This partnership will help the program attract allies in the architectural sector and promote the Whole Building incentive. Architects can access low cost Continuing Education Units through the APS Technical Training program. In addition to many of the marketing and outreach activities described for the Large Existing program, outreach activities for the New Construction program focus on educating potential program



Page 67 of 99

participants from the following customer segments: owner-occupied buildings, government buildings (schools, county, city, state) and signature projects. New Construction projects have been identified and approached from several directions. During this Reporting Period, the Solutions for Business program made contacts with the contractor and design community, but new construction project starts are still limited and are primarily centered in the government, higher education and K-12 sectors at this time. Currently a pipeline of 40 new construction projects is being maintained. Specific examples of New Construction outreach include:

• Monthly networking at construction industry association meetings, including the Arizona chapter of the US Green Building Council, BOMA, Leading Edge Arizona and the AIA. This attendance is an important component of lead development for future projects, which could qualify for design assistance and other program incentives. It also helps to identify and recruit potential trade allies into the program.

• Project-specific meetings and conference calls with architecture and engineering firms, developers, contractors and customers continue for projects at all stages of design and development. In addition, industry professionals receive program updates and program-related support. In this Reporting Period, APS Solutions for Business program staff held on-site trainings with approximately 25 professionals to discuss program details and to identify potential energy-efficiency opportunities.

Additional leads came from the APS Economic Development group as they meet with developers.



Page 68 of 99

PROGRAM: SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM Description The Non-Residential Small Business Program provides prescriptive incentives for small Non-Residential customers (<400 kW of aggregated peak monthly demand) for EE improvements in lighting, HVAC, motors and refrigeration applications through a simple and straightforward mechanism for program participation. Small Business customers are also eligible for custom incentives to implement EE measures. The program provides incentives for conducting an energy study that identifies energy saving opportunities. The program also provides educational and promotional materials designed to assist building owners and lease-holders in making decisions to improve the EE of their facilities. Direct Install measures were introduced to the Small Business market in April 2009. Program Modifications ACC Decision No. 72088 expanded eligibility for Direct Install to customers with <400 kW of aggregated peak monthly demand (previously limited to 100 kW and below). It also added two lighting measures to the Direct Install incentive offerings. The cap for small customers (≤100 kW monthly demand) was increased to $150,000 plus 50% of the incentive over $150,000. See the Large Existing section for other applicable program modifications. ACC Decision No. 73089 requires APS to report the number of measures installed, the annual energy and capacity savings, and measure life on an individual basis. Please see chart below:

Measure Qty kWh Savings kW

Savings Measure Life EMS - DDC Replacing Pneumatic or Manual T-stat EMS - DDC Replacing Programmable T-stat or digital system 13,416 43,602

- 13

EMS - Integrated Lighting Control

LED - non-reflector 836 194,353

44.48 7

LED - reflector 3,263 604,993

179.79 7

LED - MR16 1,152 151,684

47.58 7 Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets

• Promote and support EE opportunities for small Non-Residential customers. • Promote the installation of high-efficiency lighting, packaged HVAC equipment, motors and

refrigeration systems.



Page 69 of 99

• Provide customers with direct energy saving opportunity identification and implementation services through the Direct Install family of measures.

• Promote cross-training and EE assessment and referral opportunities among lighting and refrigeration contractors.

• Promote market transformation through APS trade allies, customer outreach and technical training classes.

APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimated that the EE savings from the Small Business Program could reduce annual peak demand by about 7.2 MW, 32,000 MWh annually and 521,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation In this Reporting Period, APS paid a total of $2,610,308 in Small Business program incentives, an increase of 4 percent compared to the same period in 2011. APS paid incentives on 1,271 applications from 1076 unique customers during this Reporting Period. This is an application increase of 1 percent compared with the number of Small Business program applications processed for the entire 2011 program year. Of the 1,271 small business projects paid, 423 were conducted through the Classic prescriptive/custom program and 848 were conducted through Direct Install. None of the 1,271 applications were from school districts. While the program offers a pre-notification process to reserve incentive funds, final applications are only processed after the project is completed and all required documentation is submitted and approved. Incentive Status for Active Applications Incentives Paid Small Business – Prescriptive $2,610,308

Small Business – Studies $0

Small Business – Retro commissioning Studies $0 Total Small Business Funds $2,610,308

In Decision No. 70637, the Commission ordered APS to continue to track DSM applications resulting from studies for which incentives have been paid, and report the semi-annual and cumulative results of its program-to-date tracking efforts. There were no study incentive paid in the Small Business program during this Reporting Period. Six studies have been completed since program inception, of which five study applications have resulted in EE projects.



Page 70 of 99

Direct Install Direct Install incentives were paid on 848 projects for Small Business customers during this Reporting Period. While small businesses are the primary target for the Direct Install offering, large customers with facilities of 400 kW or less premise demand qualify for Direct Install measure incentives, and schools of any size can participate. In addition to the 848 projects paid to small businesses, an additional 265 Direct Install projects for Large Businesses and Schools were paid. The breakdown of Direct Install incentives and paid projects is provided in the section below. Projects implemented through Direct Install during this Reporting Period are expected to save 37,900 MWh annually or 510,900 MWh over the lifetime of the measures. This is a 10 percent decrease compared to the savings achieved during the same timeframe last year.

1. Active Number of Contractors and Contractor Identification: Direct Install contractor participation from approved contractors has remained consistent. During this Reporting Period, 29 approved contractors participated in Direct Install, an increase of 7 percent compared to the entire 2011 program year. Contractors participating during the current Reporting Period include the following:

• ACCEL ELECTRIC AZ LLC • ATS ELECTRIC, INC. • BURDEN ELECTRIC LLC • DECA SOUTHWEST • DEMAND DROP • ECO POWER, LLC • G & A SERVICES LLC • G&S ELECTRIC, INC. • GREEN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES • GREENLIGHT ELECTRIC LLC • HARMON ELECTRIC INC • HOPE CONSTRUCTION LLC • INLINE ELECTRICAL RESOURCES • J & S ELECTRIC LLC • JEN ELECTRIC • JFK ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING • KER ELECTRIC, INC • LONE MOUNTAIN ELECTRIC LLC • NUWEST TECHNOLOGIES INC • PROFORMANCE ELECTRIC INC. • REDLINE ELECTRIC LLC • REGROUP PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING LLC • ROB LOVE ELECTRIC • STONE KAT DEVELOPMENT



Page 71 of 99

• SUPERMARKET ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES LLC • TEPCON CONSTRUCTION • THE SIGNERY • US ENERGY SERVICES INC • WILSON ELECTRIC SERVICES CORP

One contractor training meeting was held and attended for 12 companies interested in participating in the Direct Install approach. This training meeting provided an in-depth review of the Direct Install measure software and included a “hands-on” approach that allowed participants to input sample projects into the Direct Install software. Six new companies were approved for Direct Install measure participation during the entire 2012 program year.

2. Number of Direct Install Jobs Completed: A total of 1,113 Direct Install projects were paid incentives during this Reporting Period.

3. Dollar Value of the Direct Install Incentives Paid to Contractors: During this Reporting Period, $4,335,936 in Direct Install incentives was paid to contractors. This represents 66% of the total project costs. 4. Dollar Value of the Direct Install Jobs Paid by the Customer: The total cost of the Direct Install projects during this Reporting Period was $6,600,068. Customers paid $2,264,132 toward these Direct Install projects during this Reporting Period.

5. Quantity of Each Direct Install measure for which incentives were paid:

Direct Install Measure Quantity Delamping 26,508 T8 Lighting 35,319 Screw-in CFL 1,178 Occupancy Sensors 3,547 Exit Signs 1,057 Refrigerated Case Fan Motors 9,085 Anti Sweat Heater Controls 1,229 Refrigerated Novelty Case Controls 332 Refrigerated Case Evaporator Fan Controls 1,337 Hard-Wired CFL 6,456 Occupancy Sensors - Vending Machines 74

6. Number of Instances Where Incentives Were Reduced Because of Eligibility for Incentives Paid by Other Entities: No known occurrences during this Reporting Period.



Page 72 of 99

7. Spending and Savings Numbers Attributable to Direct Install for the Period and Year-to-Date and Program-to-Date: Reporting Period: Year-to-Date

kW Savings Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings 6,042 37,986,689 510,959,034

MER Adjusted Program-to-date kW Savings Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings

22,238 110,156,198 1,589,454,684 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%.

Direct Install Cost Rebates & Incentives




Program Marketing

Planning & Admin Subtotal

Year-to-Date Jan-Dec 2012 $4,335,936 $10,853 $0 $610,900 $0 $0 $4,957,689 Program-to-Date Jan 2005- Dec 2012 $13,645,688 $262,406 $638,997 $1,536,591 $75,205 $70,166 $16,229,053

8. Descriptions of the Types of Businesses Participating in Direct Install: The “Restaurant” sector participated in the Direct Install measure at the highest rate of frequency and accounted for 27% of Direct Install projects paid during this Reporting Period.

Participation in the Direct Install measure included the following business types:

College/University 1 Grocery 137 Hotel/Motel 8 K-12 School 58 Medical 27 Miscellaneous 209 Office 123 Process Industrial 20 Restaurant 180 Retail 305 Warehouse 45

9. Estimate of Avoided Marketing or Other Program or Administration Costs: The costs to implement and market the Small Business program prior to implementing the Direct Install measures were higher on a $/kWh basis. This is because low participation resulted in low kWh savings over which to spread implementation costs. From the program inception through 2008, implementation and marketing costs for Small Business was $1.41M (excluding incentives).



Page 73 of 99

Program net annual savings achieved were 5,544,000 kWh. This resulted in non-incentive program costs of $.25/kWh saved for the Small Business program. In this Reporting Period, estimated Direct Install implementation and marketing costs decreased to $0.014/kWh saved, due to increased kWh savings and lower costs of the Direct Install process. The total Small Business program cost savings is estimated to be $5,144,080 over the 2008 program cost rate. [Reduced program costs = ($0.25 - $0.014) x 21,796,949 net annual savings.]

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Conducted ongoing review and analysis of the Small Business participation database.


• Provided guidance on Small Business components of the program design tool to support the implementation plan.

• Conducted on-site metering of Direct Install/Express Solutions lighting projects to verify operation hours, coincidence factors, diversity factors, fixture wattages and installation rates.

• Reviewed invoices, interviewed program contractors, and conducted internet research to update cost estimates for high volume measures including linear fluorescents and occupancy sensors.

• Conducted process and customer satisfaction surveys of Express Solutions participants.

• Supported net-to-gross and market effects research through participant and contractor interviews.

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings The following table reflects the total energy and demand saving achievements in this Reporting Period for Small Businesses. Only savings from projects that were completed and incentives paid are counted in this Progress Report. MER Adjusted kW and kWh Gross Savings

kW Savings Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings 4,331 25,594,834 343,336,823

MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Costs Incurred



Page 74 of 99

Costs incurred for the Small Business Program during this Reporting Period are listed below:



Assistance Program

Implementation* Consumer Education

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

Small Business 2,610,308 24,104 736,895 821 71,546 72,065 3,515,739 * All implementation expenditures are contractor expenses. A breakdown of all implementation contractor expenses for this period and program is provided below:

DSM Program IC- Implementation IC- Marketing IC- Education IC- Technical Services IC- Total Cost

Small Business 736,895 71,546 821 24,104 836,366 Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report during the reporting period. Other Significant Information In addition to the marketing efforts described for the Large Existing program, specific marketing activities for the Small Business program leveraged Direct Install contractors to reach the small and midsize business customer and provided targeted program education and information. These activities included the following:

• Print advertisements in the Phoenix Business Journal acknowledging participation of trade allies and honoring Direct Install winners of the annual Trade Ally event awards.

• Promotional materials developed specifically for use by Direct Install contractors, specifically a re-designed tri-fold brochure highlighting the benefits of EE projects for the small business owner and a companion single-panel leave-behind for visits with potential customers or canvassing.

• Tabletop displays featuring a side panel highlighting the Direct Install program for exhibits and meetings.

• Poster-size case study of a K-12 project promoting the benefits of the program. • Pull-up display banner calling attention to the benefits of the Direct Install program for use at

larger events and meetings. • Collaboration with Energize Phoenix in developing marketing messages to promote the Direct

Install program to customers in the project corridor.



Page 75 of 99

PROGRAM: SCHOOLS PROGRAM Description The Schools program includes a set-aside budget for K-12 schools and provides assistance in reducing the energy used in school buildings, including public, private and charter schools (K-12). The incentives available for schools include the same DSM measures that are available for all Non-Residential customers, including Direct Install measures for K-12 schools of any size. Program Modifications ACC Decision No. 73089 requires APS to report the number of measures installed, the annual energy and capacity savings, and measure life on an individual basis. Please see chart below: Measure Qty kWh Savings kW Savings Measure Life EMS - DDC Replacing Pneumatic or Manual T-stat 182,231 741,679

- 13

EMS - DDC Replacing Programmable T-stat or digital system 649,905 2,112,190

- 13

EMS - Integrated Lighting Control 0 0 - 10

LED - non-reflector 29 6,791 1.55 7

LED - reflector 0 0 - 7

LED - MR16 0 0 - 7

Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets

• Maximize the energy savings that can be attained with available DSM funds by providing schools incentives to upgrade lighting, HVAC, refrigeration, and any other energy consuming systems.

• Provide educational and training materials to facility managers and trade allies in order to aid schools in other energy conservation projects.

• Promote market transformation through APS trade allies, customer outreach and technical training classes. Provide incentives for other cost effective DSM projects by allowing schools to participate in any Non-Residential DSM Program including Direct Install.

APS’s 2012 DSM Implementation Plan estimated that the EE savings from the Schools Program could reduce annual peak demand by about 4.4 MW, 33,000 MWh annually, and 464,000 MWh over the life of the measures expected to be installed in 2012. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.



Page 76 of 99

Levels of Participation In this Reporting Period, APS paid incentives for 231 applications from schools, representing 72 unique school districts and charter schools. Schools have had a very high level of participation in the program. While school districts comprise approximately 8% of APS’s Non-Residential energy use, program-to-date, schools have received 10% of the paid program incentive funds for their EE projects. The self-reported size of the school entity (based on the number of students) for approved applications paid in this Reporting Period are:

Division Programs # of

Applications # of Students

Metro Express Solutions, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 7 36,421

Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 34,865 Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 24 33,288

Metro

Custom Measures - Retrofit, Express Solutions, New Construction - Whole Building Construction, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 23 31,603

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 7 25,226

Metro

Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - New Construction, Technical Assistance & Studies, Express Solutions 25 23,949

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 64 23,667 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 20,828

Metro Prescriptive Measures - New Construction, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 19 14,731

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 3 13,546 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 11,114

Non Metro Express Solutions, Technical Assistance & Studies, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 20 10,856

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies, Express Solutions 14 9,765

Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 8,998

Non Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 3 8,764

Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 8,125 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 6 7,014 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 6,656 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 6,299 Metro Express Solutions 6 5,658


Applications # of Students

Non Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - New Construction 4 5,631

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 14 5,544 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 4,169 Metro Prescriptive Measures - New Construction 1 3,484



Page 77 of 99

Non Metro Express Solutions, Technical Assistance & Studies 4 3,246

Non Metro Express Solutions, Technical Assistance & Studies, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 15 2,566

Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 2,546 Non Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 8 2,306 Non Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 9 2,242 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 6 2,130 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 1,996

Non Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Express Solutions, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 15 1,993

Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 2 1,676

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Express Solutions, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 11 1,466

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 3 1,286 Metro Prescriptive Measures - New Construction 1 1,254 Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit 1 1,160 Metro Express Solutions, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 2 1,138

Metro Express Solutions, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 4 1,136

Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Express Solutions 2 940 Non Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 5 897 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 832 Metro Prescriptive Measures - New Construction 1 705 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Express Solutions 2 693 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 692 Metro Prescriptive Measures - New Construction 1 647 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 598 Metro Express Solutions 1 502 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 480 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 3 469

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 9 438

Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit, Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 2 413 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 407 Metro Custom Measures - Retrofit 1 345 Metro Express Solutions 1 300 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 2 273 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 262 Metro Express Solutions 1 209 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit, Technical Assistance & Studies 3 205


Applications # of Students Metro Express Solutions 1 204 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 3 203 Metro Express Solutions 1 182 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 2 170 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 166 Metro Express Solutions 1 137



Page 78 of 99

Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 136 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 130 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 130 Non Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 125 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 110 Metro Express Solutions 2 105 Metro Prescriptive Measures - Retrofit 1 50

When an incentive application is received from a school district and deemed eligible, funding is first allocated from the Schools budget up to a maximum of $100,000. Any additional funding required to cover the application is then allocated from the appropriate Large Existing, New Construction or Small Business program budget. APS paid $5,751,732 in incentives to schools during the Reporting Period, of which $2,911,474 was paid from the Schools program budget. The remaining $2,840,258 was paid to schools from the Large Existing program and New Construction program budgets (see table below). Incentive Status by Fund for Active Applications Incentives Paid Schools Budget – Prescriptive, Custom, and Direct Install $2,793,187 Schools Budget – Feasibility, Commissioning Studies, Benchmarking studies $118,287 Schools Budget – Retro commissioning Studies $0 Total School Funds $2,911,474

Schools Funding Summary: Incentives Paid Schools – School Funds $2,911,474 Schools – Large Existing Funds $2,644,217 Schools – New Construction Funds $196,041 Schools – Small Business Funds $0 Total Paid to Schools $5,751,732

In Decision No. 70637, the Commission ordered APS to continue tracking DSM applications resulting from studies for which incentives have been paid, and report the semi-annual and cumulative results of its program-to-date tracking efforts. Fifteen study incentives were paid from school funds during this Reporting Period; 14 feasibility studies were paid a total of $118,037, and one benchmarking study was paid a total of $250.00. Fourteen of these fifteen applications have resulted in energy efficiently projects to date. Since program inception 39 studies have been completed at schools; of those 39 studies, 35 have resulted in EE projects at schools. In Decision No. 73089, the ACC requested the type of measures installed after a study was completed. The following measures were installed for studies completed in 2012: chillers, economizers, HVAC, HVAC Controls, HVAC Tune Up Qualified Install, interior lighting, programmable thermostats and refrigeration.



Page 79 of 99

Schools Direct Install Direct Install incentives were paid on 58 school projects during this Reporting Period. Of the 58 projects, 45 were paid from the Schools fund and 13 were paid from Large Existing funds. Direct Install activities for this period are described in the Small Business Program report. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Conducted ongoing review and analysis of the participation database.


• Evaluated savings impacts of a sample of Custom projects through phone interviews and on-site inspection and metering.

• Continued on-site metering of School lighting projects to verify operation hours, coincidence factors, diversity factors, and installation rates.


• Conducted process and customer satisfaction surveys of Custom and Schools program participants.

• Assessed attribution of Technical Assistance offerings on projects implemented outside of the program through document review and participant interviews. Results will support on-going net-to-gross and market effects research.

MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings The following table reflects the total energy and demand saving achievements for schools projects completed and paid during this Reporting Period. MER Adjusted kW and kWh Gross Savings

kW Savings1 Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings

Schools – School Funds 3,834.3 24,522,802 340,383,135

Schools – Large Existing Funds 3,793.7 24,759,118 336,962,176

Schools – New Construction Funds 195.2 1,260,528 19,086,409

Schools – Small Business Funds 0.0 0 0

Total Attributable to Schools 7,823.2 50,542,449 696,431,721 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%.



Page 80 of 99

Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No problems to report for this Reporting Period. Costs Incurred Program costs incurred during this Reporting Period are listed below:



Program Implementation*

Consumer Education

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

Schools 2,911,474 56,097 777,335 $1,107 69,114 82,051 3,897,179 All implementation expenditures are contractor expenses. A breakdown of all implementation contractor expenses for this period and program: DSM Program IC- Implementation IC- Marketing IC- Education IC- Technical Services IC- Total Cost

Schools 777,335 69,114 1,107 56,097 903,653 Findings from Research Projects There were no findings from any research projects during this Reporting Period. Other Significant Information In addition to many of the marketing outreach activities described for the large existing program, marketing activities associated with the Schools program centered on five areas of focus:

1. Trade Ally Development: Trade Ally recruitment and support efforts focused on improving program knowledge by providing opportunities for development and training. Outreach efforts focused particularly on the state-approved ESCOs that have contracts for all the stimulus-funded projects and other ESCOs, since enabling legislation allows districts to use performance contracting many school districts take advantage of this option.

2. Customer awareness and project generation: During this Reporting Period, twenty-nine contacts were made including phone calls, e-mails and meetings with districts to identify potential new projects. Staff supported a booth at the AASBO summer conference in Tucson, making contacts with school officials as well as contractors

3. Coordination with the Schools Facility Board (“SFB”): Staff attends all SFB meetings to stay abreast of school EE projects, both funding and progress. While ARRA funding has been fully dispensed, some ARRA dollars were reallocated due to unused funds in certain districts or state agencies. In addition, some of the emergency repairs approved by SFB include equipment covered by program specifications such as cooling systems. As these are approved, Solutions for Business follows up with the districts. During this Reporting Period, Solutions for Business staff met with the SFB, continuing the momentum behind the Solutions for Business HVAC Tune-up Program. Wilson and Mayer School Districts participated, with more slated for 2013.



Page 81 of 99

4. Coordination with the APS Schools Key Account Manager. Program staff has coordinated

with the APS Relationship Managers (“RMs”) who have schools assigned to them, to maximize the customer’s time and value during planned meetings. The partnership with the APS’s Schools RMs has facilitated troubleshooting of other related customer issues as well as the cross-selling of other DSM programs.

5. Attended conference and meetings of the Arizona Association of School Business Officials. Program staff has attended AASBO Bi-monthly meetings where school business and finance professionals meet. Latest news on legislative and financial issues pertaining to schools is disseminated at these meetings and contacts have been made with school business officials.



Page 82 of 99

PROGRAM: ENERGY INFORMATION SERVICES (“EIS”) PROGRAM Description The EIS Program, which was first made available to APS customers in November 2006, helps large customers (>100 kW) save energy by giving them a better understanding and control of their facilities’ electric use. EIS provides data not only regarding usage and demand, but also identifies when, where and how much power is used in specific areas of each facility. This detailed information allows customers to fine-tune equipment use and operations and to document the impact of those changes. Participating customers monitor their electric usage through a web-based energy information system that allows them to receive historical (up to previous day) 15-minute usage and demand graphics. This information can be used to improve or monitor energy usage patterns, reduce energy use, reduce demands during on-peak periods and better manage overall energy operations. APS is encouraging customers to take advantage of EIS by providing a one-time incentive of up to a maximum of $12,000 or 75% of the cost of installing metering and communications equipment necessary to participate in the program. Program Modifications No modifications were made during this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets

• Provide monthly energy usage information to participating large Non-Residential customers. • Participants identify strategies to lower energy cost by reducing energy usage and demand. • Educate EIS program participants about utility rate concepts and how managing or reducing

their energy consumption through EE measures and operational practices can reduce their energy expenses.

• Teach participants how to download billing history information and create spreadsheets to chart and graph their energy use, as well as to identify consumption trends and savings opportunities.

• Educate EIS participants about creating reports for management that justify energy-efficient capital expenses intended to produce operations and maintenance savings; and

• Facilitate analysis of what-if scenarios to help large facility managers assess the benefits of capital improvements or operating adjustments to improve EE.

• Customers ultimately save electric (kWh) energy through simple changes in operations and maintenance (low/no cost savings measures).

Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this Reporting Period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.



Page 83 of 99

Levels of Participation No new customers were added to the EIS program during this reporting period. Although no new customers or meters were added during the 2012 reporting period, additional customers and meters have been added in the first quarter of 2013. A total of 44 customers now participate in EIS, representing 190 meters. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results

• Conducted ongoing tracking and review of the EIS program participation data. MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings

Meters Est. Measure Life Years

kWh Savings per Year

Lifetime kWh Savings kW Demand Savings

0 5 0 0 0 MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No EIS meters were added in 2012. However, there is a strong pipeline of interested customers going into 2013. Over the life-time of this program, APS anticipates it to be very cost effective. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:




Program Implement*

Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

Energy Information Services $0 $0 $1,170 $27,997 $0 $1,605 $30,772 *All implementation expenditures are contractor expenses. A breakdown of all implementation contractor expenses for this period and program:

DSM Program IC- Implementation IC- Marketing IC- Education IC- Technical Services IC- Total Cost

Energy Information Services

$27,997 $0 $0 $0 $27,997

Findings from Research Projects Nothing to report during this Reporting Period. Other Significant Information Nothing to report during this Reporting Period.



Page 84 of 99

PROGRAM: CODES AND STANDARDS SUPPORT Description The Energy Codes and Appliance Standards (“C&S”) Initiative encourages energy savings by supporting the adoption of higher building energy codes and appliance standards in jurisdictions throughout the APS service area by working with code officials, building professionals and other market actors to develop strategies for achieving code compliance cost effectively. C&S can be one of most cost-effective ways of promoting EE. APS believes C&S activities may be utilized to deliver low cost energy savings while supporting Arizona building officials, the construction community, customers and stakeholders. APS will support C&S activities with a multifaceted approach that provides unbiased support, information, resources, and expertise to jurisdictions within the APS service area.

• Residential and Commercial Energy Codes - Activities are intended to support energy code adoption committees, building officials, the builder community, and interested stakeholders. Targeted activities include providing technical support, research, subject matter expertise, resources, and training. Training classes will be customized to jurisdictional needs.

• Appliance Standards – Activities will target appliance standards with recently updated rulemakings and standards where rulemakings are yet to begin. APS will target and quantify savings created from recently updated standards where current APS EE programs provided incentives for many years creating market readiness for the new standard. To target future appliance standard savings, APS will begin participating in DOE rulemaking proceedings for appliance standards where rulemakings are expected to begin and will likely make a significant impact in Arizona.

Program Modifications No modifications were made during this reporting period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Program Goals, Objectives and Savings Targets The goal of this project was to quantify through MER evaluation energy savings that resulted from Title 44 requiring dual speed pumps with new pool pump installations. Project objectives were to develop a C&S Support implementation strategy and framework. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this reporting period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation Pool pump savings estimates are based on an estimated 3,858 pool pumps affected by the code change.



Page 85 of 99

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results Commission Decision No. 73089, required APS to file a MER Report for Codes and Standards in its 2012 Annual Progress Report. APS’s Codes and Standards MER report contains confidential information and will be submitted once a protective agreement is executed with Commission Staff. MER Adjusted Gross kW and kWh Savings DSM Project Total Annual MWh Savings Pool Pump Legislation 2,332

MER savings are adjusted for line losses (energy 7.0%, demand 11.7%) and a capacity reserve factor of 15%. Benefits and Net Benefits/Performance Incentive Calculation The MER adjusted net benefits and performance incentive are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No problems encountered during the reporting period. Costs Incurred Costs incurred for this program during this Reporting Period are listed below:

Findings from Research Projects Key Assumptions and methodologies for estimating pool pump savings are included in Appendix A. Other Significant Information Key Activities/Code Support Events in 2012 included the following education and outreach:

• Hosted with partners an Energy Code Training Workshop • Sponsor of the AZBO Spring Training Institute • Co-sponsored a Manual J Training workshop with SRP • Provided scholarships for building officials to attend the Codes Training Track of the Energy

and Environmental Building Alliance • Provided technical assistance and support to the City of Yuma • Attended jurisdictional meetings throughout the APS service area supporting code update

activities

Incentives Training & Technical

Assistance

Consumer Education


Program Marketing

Planning & Admin.

Program Total Cost

Codes & Standards Support

$0 $0 $0 $70,159 $0 $21,541 $91,700

DSM Program

Implementation

(Contractor)

Implementation

(APS)


Codes & Standards Support $0 $70,159 $70,159



Page 86 of 99

• Built alliances and collaborations with key industry partners to coordinate energy code and appliance standard activities

Advertising & Marketing Activities No advertising or marketing activities were undertaken in this Reporting Period.



Page 87 of 99

PROGRAM: APS PEAK SOLUTIONS® PROGRAM Description APS Peak Solutions®

is a commercial and industrial demand response (“DR”) program for APS's

Yuma and Phoenix metro customers utilizing direct load control and manual load reduction.

The program began on June 1, 2010 and is available for the summer months of June through September between 12:00 noon and 8:00 p.m. (Sunday - Saturday) daily. Customers have the option of being notified either ten minutes or two hours prior to the start of a Peak Solutions® event. Events are limited to minimum of one hour and maximum of six hour per day and 80 event-hours during the season. The program is required to have one test at the start of the season between June 1 and July 15 lasting from four to six hours.

Customers are paid an incentive check at the end of the season for their load reduction amount based on $/kW or $/ton of air conditioning. Program Modifications No program modifications were made during this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation Approximately 2,900 customers are enrolled in the program. MW and MWh Savings Targets In 2012, a 63 MW load reduction provided 275,940 MWh of annual savings realized from January through December 2012. Load reduction and savings targets are summarized in Table 8 – Demand Response Program/Initiatives. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this reporting period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results During this reporting period two Peak Solutions® tests were called; one in June and the other in August. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions The expected load reduction goal for this program was not met in 2012. APS is currently working with the implementation contractor to address and resolve program issues going forward.



Page 88 of 99

Costs Incurred For this Reporting Period Peak Solutions® has spent $2,587,673. Market Outreach: Customer program enrollment has been accomplished primarily by door-to-door sales by APS’s third party vendor, Comverge, Inc.



Page 89 of 99

PROGRAM: CRITICAL PEAK PRICING – GENERAL SERVICE AND RESIDENTIAL Description Critical Peak Pricing, or its marketing name of Peak Event Pricing,

is a DR program for both APS’s

business (or General Service) and Residential customers in the Yuma and Phoenix metro areas utilizing manual load reduction.

CPP is a two-year Pilot program which became effective on January 1, 2010 and runs through January 1, 2012. On June 24, 2011, APS filed and was granted an extension to extend the Residential program for another two years through January 1, 20141

The program provides a price signal to incent customers to reduce their usage during events initiated by APS. CPP events will take place during June through September, weekdays between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. (Monday through Friday), excluding holidays. Customers will be notified of an event by telephone or e-mail by 4:00 p.m. of the day prior to the CPP event. Peak Events are limited to 80 hours during the season. APS is required to initiate a minimum of six events and a maximum of 18 events.

.

Customers receive a kWh discount incentive off of their existing rate for all of the electricity usage during the program months of June through September. Program Modifications No program modifications for this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation Approximately 1,066 Residential and one business customers are enrolled in the program. Most business customers have found APS Peak Solutions® more financially and operationally beneficial. MW and MWh Savings Targets The program is estimated to provide a 2012 load reduction amount of 0. 6 MW. The 0.6 MW load reduction will provide 2,452 MWh of annual savings. Load reduction and savings targets are summarized in Table 8 – DR Program/Initiatives: 2012 Load Reduction and Energy Savings: January – December, 2012. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results Sixteen CPP events were called during this Reporting Period, APS is currently evaluating the results but expects an average of 560 kW load reduction/customer per event. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No problems are reported for this Reporting Period. 1 Docket No. E-01345A-11-0250 (June 24, 2011).



Page 90 of 99

Costs Incurred Program implementation costs are not specifically tracked. Market Outreach: A residential email campaign was held from March-April with the intent of getting customers to sign up for the service plan.



Page 91 of 99

PROGRAM: TIME OF USE (“TOU”) RATES INCLUDING SUPER PEAK PRICING (“SPP”) Description TOU rates are designed 1) to reflect the time variation in the cost of producing electricity, to more accurately match those costs with the service being provided to the customer thereby encouraging efficient use of energy, and 2) to encourage customers to reduce consumption during peak hours or to shift energy usage to off-peak periods. APS currently offers five Residential TOU rates:

a. Two "Series 1" rates that have on-peak hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and have been offered since 1982. The Series 1 rates were closed to new customers on January 1, 2010,

b. Two “Series 2” rates that have on-peak hours from 12:00 pm Noon to 7:00 p.m. and have been offered since 2006. These rates offer customers 40% fewer on-peak hours,

c. One Super-Peak Pricing TOU rate that went into effect on January 1, 2010. The SPP periods are pre-determined and set forth in the rate schedule rather than communicated to the customer on a day-ahead basis as with the CPP. Participating customers will pay higher charges during the "Super-Peak" periods, but will pay lower charges during off-peak periods. The "Super-Peak" period is 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday during June, July, and August (excluding holidays).

APS is offering two new school rates which contain an additional shoulder time period which may benefit customers who can shift loads from on-peak times. Rate Modifications No modifications have occurred in the rates. Levels of Participation Approximately 534,000 customers are enrolled in the TOU rates of which 640 are super peak customers. As of December 2012, five schools were enrolled in the new school rates. MW and MWh Savings Targets The program is estimated to provide a 2012 load reduction amount of 117.62

MW from the Series 1 and 2 rates and 0.57 MW from the super peak rate. The 118.2 MW total load reduction will provide 517,585 MWh of annual savings from January through December 2012. Load reduction and savings targets are summarized in Table 8 – DR Program/Initiatives: 2012 Load Reduction and Energy Savings: January – December 2012.

Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results No evaluation of TOU rates have been performed to date other than customer count.

2 The load reduction estimate is for 2011; as the estimate for 2012 was not finalized at the time of filing this report.



Page 92 of 99

Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions No problems have been encountered for this Reporting Period. Costs Incurred For this Reporting Period TOU Rates has spent $10,318. Market Outreach: The TOU market outreach is outlined below:

1. Bill Message (April) 2. Lifestyles Newsletter April, May and October 3. Rate Brochures



Page 93 of 99

PROGRAM: HOME ENERGY INFORMATION PILOT Description On March 3, 2011, the Commission approved the Company’s Home Energy Information (“HEI”) Pilot.3

APS’s HEI Pilot is designed to test available home area network technologies and determine communication devices, DR strategies, and the mix of “smart” home applications that can be most effectively employed in a Residential setting. In addition, the HEI Pilot will assess customer acceptance, value, and frequency of usage of in-home energy displays or other communication devices designed to assist customers in managing their daily energy usage.

The Pilot was previously planned to be conducted over the two summer seasons of 2011 and 2012 allowing the Company time to choose technology vendors, solicit Residential participants, install devices and communications systems, and determine measurement and evaluation techniques. APS was granted an extension of time to implement the HEI Pilot in Commission Decision No. 73089 (April 4, 2012) through 2013 with no additional funding. In APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan,4 APS requested that HEI Pilot Programs A-D be extended for an additional year, through the end of 2014. The extension request includes budget changes and was made to allow for two full successive summers as part of its MER Study process in order to properly evaluate the persistence and validity of the individual technology assessments, as well as the associated customer behavior patterns providing the essential and comprehensive information to develop a future full-scale program. APS filed a status report with the Commission on the HEI Pilot on December 31, 2012.5

APS is deploying the following five technology assessment programs as part of the HEI Pilot: A. Critical Peak Pricing with Customer Control Device B. In-Home Energy Information Display C. Direct Load Control D. “Smart” Communication Devices E. Pre-Pay Energy Service.

The data collected and analyzed in the HEI Pilot will allow APS to better design and implement future DR, EE, and smart grid applications. Program Modifications No modifications have been made during this Reporting Period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Levels of Participation

3 Decision No. 72214 (March 3, 2011). 4 Docket No. E-01345A-12-0224. 5 Docket No E-01345A-10-0075.



Page 94 of 99

For the HEI technology assessment programs A through D, no customer enrollment has occurred to date. APS anticipates customer recruitment to begin in the second quarter of 2013. For the HEI Pre-pay assessment, APS successfully launched the Pre-Pay Energy Service program in July 2012. As of December 2012, 1180 customers are participating in the APS Pre-pay Pilot Program. MW and MWh Savings Targets No load reduction or MWh savings will be considered until data from the Pilot is available. Programs or Measures Terminated No programs or measures were terminated during this reporting period. Programs or measures proposed for termination in 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan. Evaluation and Monitoring Activities and Results APS has selected Navigant Consulting to conduct the HEI Pilot MER evaluation. The companies are working together to set up the Pilot measurement and evaluation parameters. Pursuant to Commission Decision No. 73223, APS is monitoring bill estimation for prepay customers and will provide those results in a future report. Problems Encountered and Proposed Solutions APS continues to work with its project partners on software development and system integration efforts. Multiple internal and external systems are required to communicate in order to support all five Pilot categories and their corresponding technologies. The current schedule has been divided into three distinct phases. Pre-pay Phase

• Pre-pay Energy Services

HEI Phase 1 – Broadband Communications • Critical Peak Pricing with Customer Control Devices • Direct Load Control

HEI Phase 2 – AMI Communications

• In-Home Energy Information Display • Direct Load Control • Smart Communication devices

Schedule: Pre-pay Phase: Pre-Pay Energy Service program successfully launched in the third quarter 2012. HEI technology assessments A through D:



Page 95 of 99

• APS conducted extensive laboratory tests first quarter 2012, and made a number of routine and typical modifications to the technology to support actual field deployment.

• Second quarter 2012, APS completed field trials, with pre-Pilot volunteers, to demonstrate field

performance. This field experience identified a number of deficiencies and interdependencies between hardware and software, APS systems, vendor support solutions and system upgrades, which were not experienced in prior lab testing.

• APS and partners launched an intensive study in Q3 2012 to determine the root cause of the

field difficulties. The investigations concluded that the extent and broad diversity of APS’s TOU rate choices created new scenarios that exposed hardware and software limitations.

• Due to necessary enhancements, in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan requested Commission

approval of (i) an additional one-year extension for programs A through D and (ii) an increased budget for the Pilot.6

APS remains confident that these programs will continue to provide valuable data regarding the complex interaction between technologically advanced systems and customer acceptance of these technologies.

• Phase 1 (Broadband Communications): Design, development and integration discussion were completed fourth quarter 2012. Completion of integration will occur Q1 2013, and field testing will begin in early Q2 2013. APS will begin customer recruitment in Q2 2013, followed with customer deployment.

• Phase 2 (AMI Communications): Design, development and integration discussion were completed fourth quarter 2012. Completion of integration first quarter 2013, and begin field-testing in early second quarter 2013, for customer recruitment in second quarter 2013, and for customer deployment second quarter 2013.

Costs Incurred As of December 2012, HEI Pilot has spent $922,986 of the $2,835,000 non capital-related budget, and $354,424 of the $698,837 capital-related carrying costs. Market Outreach: In 2011, APS completed all Pre-Pay stakeholders’ collaborative workshops, three additional collaborative meetings along with, conducting four customer focus groups to gather customer feedback relating to marketing and customer educational messages for the Pre-Pay Pilot program.

6 See APS’s 2013 Demand Side Management Implementation Plan Supplement, filed on December 13, 2012.



Page 96 of 99

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT APS partnered with City of Phoenix on Energize Phoenix. This project is targeted to energy-efficient retrofits with Residential and Non-Residential customers. The City of Phoenix is leveraging the incentives with the APS Home Performance Program and Solutions for Business program. At the end of this Reporting Period, the boundaries of Energize Phoenix were expanded, increasing both the businesses and residences eligible for the program. To date, over 343 businesses have benefited through the Energize Phoenix program.



Page 97 of 99

FINANCING PROGRAMS NON-RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY FINANCING On January 26, 2010, the Commission issued Decision No. 71460, which approved the Non-Residential Customer Repayment Financing option. The option was approved for schools, municipalities and small businesses. Decision No. 72088 expanded eligibility for the financing program to include all Non-Residential customers. APS has partnered with National Bank of Arizona (“NBAZ”) to offer this financing option. The Financing option was launched in May of 2010. More than half of the program trade allies have participated in financing training. The program developed educational materials for bankers, customers and trade allies to facilitate the process. Program staff meet regularly with NBAZ staff to discuss promotional opportunities.

Category Number of

Loans Total Loan

Value Amount in

Default Large Existing 5 $133,328 0 Small 3 $ 1,180 0 Schools 0 $0 0 Total 8 $134,508 0

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY FINANCING On September 1, 2010, the Commission issued Decision No. 71866, which approved the Residential Energy Efficiency Financing (“REEF”) Program. Through this program, APS customers who participate in the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® can gain access to financing for energy efficient home improvements. Launched in February 2011, APS partnered with NBAZ to deliver the REEF program throughout the APS territory. During this Reporting Period, APS introduced a promotional rate of 1.99% for the month of August. Under the promotional rate, APS experienced a steep increase in customer participation, equating to 30 new loans. One customer defaulted in 2012 and APS will continue to monitor defaults closely.

Category Number of Loans Total Loan Value Loans issued Jan - Dec. 31, 2012 95

$588,529.36

Jobs in default 1

$2,154 Jobs deemed unrecoverable 0

0



Page 98 of 99

PORTFOLIO PLANNING: DSM MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION AND RESEARCH Description On April 12, 2006 in Decision No. 68648, the ACC approved funding for MER activities to assist in verifying the impact and cost effectiveness of APS’s DSM programs. As required per Decision No. 68648, APS filed MER program plans for Staff’s review on August 16, 2007, with the exception of the EIS MER research plan that was filed on June 24, 2008. Navigant Consulting provides MER Services for APS’s DSM programs. These Measurement and Evaluation activities include, but are not limited to:

• Performing process evaluation research to indicate how well programs are working to achieve their objectives;

• Performing impact evaluation research to verify that energy-efficient measures are installed as expected; measuring savings on installed projects to monitor the actual program savings that are achieved; and conducting research activities to refine savings and cost benefit models and identify additional opportunities for EE;

• Performing and tracking savings measurements to monitor the actual program savings that are achieved; and

• Researching additional opportunities for EE. The approach for measurement and evaluation of the DSM programs is to integrate data collection and tracking activities directly into the program implementation process. Program Modifications No Program modifications were made during this reporting period. Program modifications for 2013, where applicable, are included in APS’s 2013 Implementation Plan.


DSMANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD: JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2012

CERTIFICATION BY APS OF

DSM ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD:

JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2012

Pursuant to Decision No. 67744 (April 7, 2005), I certify that to the best of my knowledge and based on the information made available to me, the DSM Annual Progress Report is complete and accurate in all material respects.

Page 101 of 101

Page 99 of 99

z09563

Text Box

Documents

Market Transformation Program â€“ summary of semi-annual activity