20240806Reply Comments.pdf

Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454) RECEIVED
Peter J. Richardson(ISB No. 3195) Tuesday, August 6, 2024
Richardson Adams, PLLC IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
515 N. 271h Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Irion Sanger(ISB No. 12488)
Sanger Law, PC
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97214
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-12
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR )
APPROVAL OF A MARKET PURCHASE ) NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN
AGREEMENT ) POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S
REPLY COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Northwest& Intermountain Power Producers Coalition("NIPPC") hereby submits its
Reply Comments to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or"Commission") in the
above-captioned proceeding.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE I

NIPPC is a trade association whose members and associate members include independent
power producers active in the Pacific Northwest and Western energy markets and is uniquely
positioned to comment on development of resource solicitation policies. NIPPC's organizational
purpose is to represent the interests of its members in developing rules and policies that help
achieve a competitive electric power supply market in the Pacific Northwest. NIPPC has
participated in numerous regulatory proceedings related to requests for proposals ("RFPs"),
bidding guidelines, and competitive markets before state regulatory commissions in the
Northwest, Intermountain West, and before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
As noted in NIPPC's Petition to Intervene,NIPPC submits Reply Comments solely to
address the recommendation in Staff s Comments that the IPUC require Idaho Power to file a
parallel case before the IPUC whenever the rules of the Oregon Public Utility Commission
("OPUC")require Idaho Power to file a proceeding governing a resource solicitation in Oregon.
As explained below, NIPPC supports efforts the IPUC may undertake to adopt IPUC-specific
requirements or proceedings for Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power") future resource
acquisitions,but NIPPC recommends that, if the IPUC will require rules that differ from the
rules applicable through Oregon, then any such new rules should be carefully developed in an
open and transparent process to ensure that the Commission's goals are achieved.
COMMENTS
NIPPC has long supported the IPUC's requirement that Idaho Power follow robust RFP
rules. NIPPC was an active party in IPUC Case No. IPC-E-10-03 that resulted in this
Commission's direction that Idaho Power must follow the bidding rules in effect in Oregon. In
that proceeding, after investigating the possibility of developing Idaho-specific bidding rules,the
IPUC declined to do so after concluding that Idaho Power was already subject to rules in Oregon
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE 2

for all of its major resource acquisitions. Ultimately, the IPUC issued the following directive:
"Idaho Power is directed to comply with RFP guidelines applicable in its Oregon service area,
should the Company commence an RFP process for a new supply-side resource prior to the
development of Idaho-specific RFP guidelines." IPUC Case No. IPC-E-10-03, Order No. 32745
at 2.
More recently, this Commission has continued to direct Idaho Power to follow the
Oregon RFP rules as Idaho Power has begun to more frequently acquire new generation
resources.' For example, in Case No. IPC-E-22-13, this Commission reviewed Idaho Power's
acquisition of utility-owned battery energy storage systems through an RFP process that did not
follow the Oregon rules or even allow third-party-owned bids under a battery storage agreement.
The Commission stated: "We expect the Company to closely monitor its projected capacity
needs going forward and to act proactively to ensure a robust RFP process can be completed."
Order No. 35643 at 13; see also id. ("The Company's customers should not bear the financial
consequences incurred when Idaho Power fails to adequately plan for its capacity deficiency and
in turn acts reactively, forcing it to add resources that the Commission is unsure are actually the
least-cost resource because a robust RFP was not undertaken."). NIPPC strongly supports this
Commission's requirement that Idaho Power follow robust competitive bidding rules.
NIPPC has been an active participant in such RFP proceedings before the OPUC,
including OPUC Docket No. UM 2255 where the OPUC approved the RFP that ultimately
resulted in Idaho Power's acquisition of the Powerex market purchase agreement ("MPA") at
issue in this IPUC proceeding, as well as other resources. That RFP was the first RFP where
' The OPUC's RFP rules are now codified in Chapter 860, Division 89 of the Oregon
Administrative Rules. See Ore. Admin. Rules 860-089-0010 through 860-089-0550.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE 3

Idaho Power fully engaged with the OPUC's RFP rules. From NIPPC's perspective, the
resulting RFP design was significantly improved. The final RFP contained many revisions to
Idaho Power's initially proposed draft RFP as a result of comments by stakeholders (including
NIPPC) on the RFP that Idaho Power agreed to or were required by the Independent Evaluator
and the OPUC. Thus,NIPPC submits that this Commission's directive that Idaho Power follow
the well-established process already being administered by the OPUC carries valuable weight
even without any further action in the RFP design phase by this Commission.
However,NIPPC understands Staff s concern that the IPUC may also wish to be
involved in the RFP design phase and welcomes the opportunity to comment on Staffs proposal
here to open parallel proceedings before the IPUC with respect to future RFPs. See Staffs
Comments at 6-7 ("Staff recommends that the Commission direct the Company to file a parallel
case with the Idaho Commission whenever OPUC policy requires oversight."). Staff explains
that the "purpose of this case would be to obtain Commission approval for the RFP document
and the process and criteria used to select resources." Id. NIPPC does not oppose the IPUC
undertaking a parallel review process to the OPUC's process overseeing Idaho Power's RFPs.
However,NIPPC offers a limited set of preliminary considerations before the IPUC considers
undertaking a major change to its current policies.
First, it is unclear whether Staff recommends that the IPUC process would require Idaho
Power to demonstrate compliance with the same rules that apply in Oregon. In NIPPC's view,
Oregon's competitive bidding rules have been developed over a number of years and have the
advantage of being well established and targeted at limiting the bias that can otherwise result in
an RFP administered by the utility. NIPPC, however, believes that the Oregon competitive
bidding rules can be improved in terms of further reducing utility bias and streamlining the
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE 4

process. To the extent that the IPUC may propose use of a different set of rules for an IPUC-
administered process,NIPPC strongly recommends that the IPUC develop such rules in a generic
proceeding where interested parties can comment on the proposed rules. Developing meaningful
RFP rules can be a challenging process that requires careful consideration by the Commission
and interested stakeholders.
Second,NIPPC notes that Staff expresses concern that the OPUC process is too lengthy,
but NIPPC cautions that adopting a new IPUC-administered process may not ultimately result in
more streamlined RFPs for Idaho Power. Absent coordination between the IPUC and the OPUC,
an IPUC-specific process is unlikely to expedite the OPUC process because the OPUC
requirements would still remain in place and apply to Idaho Power. In NIPPC's experience with
multi-state utilities where more than one state has RFP rules, the differing policies from one state
to another tend to be additive to each other rather than serving to streamline the process. That is,
one state cannot necessarily negate an RFP requirement imposed by the other state when the two
states' policies differ. It is possible to design state processes that are complementary to each
other, such as by coordinating the schedules between the two proceedings such that requirements
imposed by one state can be adopted by the other state as well, to avoid contradictory directives
to the utility. However, ensuring the goals of both states are achieved would require careful
consideration and attention.
Additionally, with respect to the length of the RFP in Docket No. UM 2255 in particular,
NIPPC notes that this was the first time Idaho Power followed the OPUC process, and that there
may be ways to expedite the process after Idaho Power gains more experience with it. For
example, in the currently ongoing RFP (OPUC Docket No. UM 2317),NIPPC did not oppose
Idaho Power's efforts to expedite the RFP process by retaining the same Independent Evaluator
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE 5

as the immediate prior RFP and by holding the RFP design process concurrently with Idaho
Power's ongoing Integrated Resource Plan process. Those proposals to expedite the process
were ultimately approved by the OPUC in that case.
In sum,NIPPC supports any efforts the IPUC may undertake to adopt IPUC-specific
requirements or proceedings for Idaho Power's future resource acquisitions. However,NIPPC
stresses any such rules and procedures should be carefully developed in an open and transparent
process to ensure that the Commission's goals are achieved.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of August�2024.
Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
Peter J. Richardson(ISB No. 3195)
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Irion Sanger(ISB No. 12488)
Sanger Law, PC
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97214
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Northwest & Intermountain Power
Producers Coalition
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY certify that I have on this 6th day of August 2024, served the foregoing
Petition to Intervene by electronic mail to the following:
Monica Barrios-Sanchez Donovan Walker
Commission Secretary Regulatory Dockets
Idaho Public Utilities Commission PO Box 70
P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83707-0070
Boise, ID 83720-0074 [e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Chris Burdin Tim Tatum
Deputy Attorney General Idaho Power Company
Idaho Public Utilities Commission 1221 W. Idaho Street(83702)
P.O. Box 83720 PO Box 70 Boise, ID 37707-0070
Boise, ID 83720-0074 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
By:
GtM. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S REPLY
COMMENTS
IPC-E-24-12—PAGE 7