20250227Answer to and Concurrence with IIPI Objection and Motion.pdf

RECEIVED
2025 February 2 7
1 Peter J. Richardson ISB# 3195 IDAHO PUBL C
Gregory M. Adams ISB# 7454 UTILITIES COMMISS N
2 RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
3 515 N. 271" Street
Boise, Idaho 8702
4 (208) 9387901
[phone]
5 ester c richardsdonadams.com
6
7 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
8
9
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER CASE No.: IPC-E-24-44
10 COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
I I APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL CONTRACT
AND TARIFF SCHEDULE 28 TO PROVIDE THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF
12 ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MICRON IDAHO IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO, AND
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CONCURRENCE WITH, THE IDAHO
13 (TRITON) LLC IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S
14 OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE
AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR
15 HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES
16 Pursuant to Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
17
Commission(the "Commission"), the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power("ICIP") by and
18
19 through its attorney of record, Peter J. Richardson, hereby lodges its Answer to, and C olIcL11-1-cilce
20 With, the Idaho Irrigation Pumper's Association's Objection to Modified Procedure and Motion
21 to Consolidate for Hearing Interrelated Cases ("Objection"). On February 20, 2025, the Idaho
22 Irrigation Pumper's Association ("IIPI") filed its Objection to the use of modified procedure in
23
this docket and also its request to consolidate "interrelated cases IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-46.'
24
25 The ICIP shares the IIPI's concerns about the impropriety of the use of modified procedure to
26 prosecute this case. The ICIP also supports the IIPI's request to consolidate with this docket the
THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, THE
27 IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES
28 IPC-E-24-44
PAGE- 1

I inexorably interrelated dockets dealing with Idaho Power's Jakalope Wind CPCN application
2 (IPC-E-24-46) and Idaho Power's 100 MW battery storage CPCN application (IPC-E-24-45).
3
Singularly any one of these dockets would have a dramatic, long-term negative' impact on Idaho
4
5
Power Company's ("IPCo") rates. The combined impact of the three dockets on Idaho Power's
6 retail rates could be of an unprecedented magnitude. Obviously, further detailed investigations
7 are warranted to determine the reasonableness and also the magnitude of the impact of these
8 three dockets.
9
I.
10
I I MODIFIED PROCEDURE IS INAPPROPRIATE
12 The Commission's rule on Modified Procedure provides no substantive guidelines as to
13 when, or even whether, a particular case may be appropriately decided without a public hearing.
14 Rule 201 provides:
15
The Commission may preliminarily find that the public interest may not require a hearing
16 to consider the issues presented in a proceeding and that the proceeding may be processed
17 under modified procedure, i.e., by written submissions rather than by hearing.
18 Rule 204 provides:
19 If no protests, supports or comments are received withing the deadline, the Commission
20 may consider the matter and enter its order without a hearing. If protests, supports,
comments or a reply are filed within the deadlines, the Commission will consider them
21 and may set the matter for hearing or may decide the matter and issue its order on the
basis of the written positions before it.
22
23
24
25 ' A negative impact on rates from a ratepayer's perspective equates to an unwarranted rate
increase.
26
THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH,THE
27 IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES
28 IPC-E-24-44
PAGE-2

1 The vague, indeed non-existent, standard for determining the appropriateness of the use
2 of Modified Procedure must only be applied in light of the Idaho Supreme Court's explicit
3
guidance as to the level of evidence required to support a Commission decision setting utility
4
rates:
5
6 (1) evidence must be taken and weighed, both as to its accuracy and credibility; (2) from
attentive consideration of this evidence a determination of facts of basic or underlying
7 nature must be reached; (3) from these basic facts the ultimate facts, usually in the
language of the statute, are to be inferred, or not, as the case may be; (4) from this finding
8 the decision will follow by the application of the statutory criterion. [citations omitted]2
9
Unfortunately, in the case of Idaho Power's Application for approval of its special contract with
10
I Micron, the Company has not offered any evidence. No prefiled testimony was proffered and no
12 affidavit as to the veracity of the assertions in the application was offered. The lack of tendered
13 evidence is fatal in a proceeding to determine retail rates such as is the case here. See Idaho
14 Code Section 61-502 and Idaho Underground Water User's Assn v. Idaho Power Co., Id. Not
15
only will the Micron/Idaho Power special contract docket (inclusive of the Jakalope Wind and
16
17 the 100 MW battery dockets) determine the retail rates for Micron, they will have significant
18 repercussions for the retail rates of all of Idaho Power's other customers as is adequately alleged
19 in the IIPI's pleading.
20 The Commission is urged to deny Idaho Power's request to process docket No. IPC-E-
21
24-44 pursuant to its procedural rules on Modified Procedure and instead conduct a full
22
23
24
25
26 z Idaho Underground Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co. 89 Idaho 147, 155,404 P.2d 859
(Idaho 1965).
THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO,AND CONCURRENCE WITH,THE
27 IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES
28 IPC-E-24-44
PAGE-3

I evidentiary hearing in which Idaho Power should be required to present testimony and exhibits
2 supporting its requested rates and contract provisions with Micron and to explain fully the impac
3
of the same on the rates and terms of service for its other rate classes.
4
5 II.
6 DOCKET CONSOLIDATION IS NECESSARY
7 The ICIP concurs with the IIPI's arguments relative to the consolidation of Docket Nos.
8 IPC-E-24-44, 45 and 46. The ICIP additionally notes that the Jakalope wind project's viability
9
may be doubtful given the new administration's very recent executive orders dealing with wind
10
11 and solar projects on federal lands. Whether or not this is a legitimate issue of concern for
12 Jackalope and Idaho Power will have to be evaluated in the evidentiary hearings in the
13 consolidated docket proceedings.
14 Dated this 27t" day of February 2025
15
16
Peter J. Richardson
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO,AND CONCURRENCE WITH,THE
27 IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES
28 IPC-E-24-44
PAGE-4

1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 271h day of February 2025, a true and correct copy of the
2 within and foregoing INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO,
3 AND CONCURRENCE WITH, THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S
OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR
4 HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES was served, pursuant to Commission Order No.
5
34602, by electronic copy only, to:
6 Commission Secretary Megan Goicoechea Allen
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Donovan E. Walker
7 PO Box 83720 Connie Aschenbrenner
Boise, ID 83720-0074 Grant Anderson
8 secretaryL&,puc.idaho. 7ov Idaho Power Company
9 Boise, Idaho 83702
Monica Barrios-Sanches mgoicoecheallen(i�,idahopower.com
10 Commission Secretary dwalker27i idahopower.com
Idaho Public Utilities Commission dockets(@,idahopower.com
11 monica.bariossanches )puc.idaho.gov caschenbrenner@,idahopower.com
12 gandersonP—idahopower.com
Eric L. Olson
13 Echo Hawk& Olsen, PLLC Lance Kaufman, PhD
14 505 Pershing Ave., Ste. 100 2623 NW Bluebell Place
Pocatello, Idaho 83205 Corvallis, OR 97330
15 elo acechohawk.com lance(u,ae ig sinsi hg, t.com
16 Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
17 Austin W. Jensen
18 Kristine A.K. Roach
Holland & Hart, LLP
19 Micron Technology, Inc.
555 17t" St., Ste. 3200
20 Denver, CO 80202
21 drueschhoff(@hollandharrt.com
tnelson(a),hollandhart.com
22 awiensen(ahollandhart.com
23
24 By: Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
25
26
THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH,THE
27 IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPER'S ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH INTERRELATED CASES
28 IPC-E-24-44
PAGE- 5