20250313IPC Response to IIPA and ICIP.pdf

"4%611—0IQAHO m Re
MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN RECEIVED
Corporate Counsel March 13,2025
mgoicoecheaallenC�idahopower.com Idaho Public
Utilities Commission
March 13, 2025
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Boulevard
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83714
Re: Case No. IPC-E-24-44
Idaho Power Company's Application for Approval of a Special Contract and
Tariff Schedule 28 to Provide Electric Service to Micron Idaho Semiconductor
Manufacturing (Triton) LLC
Dear Commission Secretary:
Attached for electronic filing, please find Idaho Power Company's Response and
Opposition to IIPA's Objection to Modified Procedure, Demand for Hearing, and Motion to
Consolidate for Hearing with Interrelated Cases and ICIP's Answer to and Concurrence
with, IIPA's Motion and Objection in the above-entitled matter.
The confidential attachment will be provided in a separate email to the parties who
sign the Protective Agreement.
If you have any questions about the attached documents, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
I Imo'NL
Megan Goicoechea Allen
MGA:sg
Attachments
1221 W. Idaho St(83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707

CERTIFICATE OF ATTORNEY
ASSERTION THAT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN AN IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION FILING IS PROTECTED FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION
Idaho Power Company's Application for Approval of Special Contract and Tariff
Schedule 28 to Provide Electric Service to Micron Idaho Semiconductor
Manufacturing (Triton) LLC
Case No. IPC-E-24-44
The undersigned attorney, in accordance with Commission Rules of Procedure
67, believes that the attachment to Idaho Power Company's Response and Opposition
to IIPA's Objection to Modified Procedure, Demand for Hearing, and Motion to
Consolidate for Hearing with Interrelated Cases and ICIP's Answer to and Concurrence
with IIPA's Motion and Objection, dated March 13, 2025, contains information that Idaho
Power and a third party claim constitutes trade secrets, confidential business records,
and/or other non-public records exempt from disclosure under state or federal law
including but not limited to Idaho Code § 48-801, et seq.; Idaho Code § 74-101, et seq.;
and/or U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 17." As such, it is protected from public
disclosure, inspection, examination, or copying.
DATED this 13th day of March 2025.
UwtiY� ��XSU�1,
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Counsel for Idaho Power Company

MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN (ISB No. 7623)
DONOVAN WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mgoicoecheaallen(a�idahopower.com
dwalker _idahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-44
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL CONTRACT AND )
TARIFF SCHEDULE 28 TO PROVIDE ) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MICRON IDAHO ) RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING ) TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO
(TRITON) LLC. ) MODIFIED PROCEDURE,
DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR
HEARING WITH INTERRELATED
CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO,
AND CONCURRENCE WITH,
IIPA'S MOTION AND OBJECTION
Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "Company"), in accordance with Idaho
Public Utilities Commissions ("Commission") Rule of Procedure 256 respectfully submits
the following Response and Opposition to the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.'s
("IIPA") Objection to Modified Procedure, Demand for Hearing, and Motion to Consolidate
for Hearing with Interrelated Cases ("Objection and Motion"), filed on February 20, 2025,
and the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power's ("ICIP") Answer to, and Concurrence with,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 1

IIPA's Objection ("Concurrence"), filed on February 27, 2025.
As more fully set forth herein, processing this case by modified procedure
continues to be appropriate under the Commission's Rules of Procedure, while the
request to consolidate should be denied as inconsistent with the requirements for
consolidated hearings under Commission Rule of Procedure 247. IIPA's Motion to
Consolidate Case Nos. IPC-E-24-44, IPC-E-24-45, and IPC-E-24-46, is not only premised
on a mistaken foundation, to wit, that the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
("CPCN") cases are "interrelated" with the Micron FAB Special Contract case but seeks
to impermissibly expand the scope of these cases. The CPCN cases as filed do not
involve a request for rate changes or a prudence determination, and so the concerns of
IIPA and ICIP about the potential impact of resource costs on customer rates are not
appropriately addressed within these dockets. The Company will make a future filing to
address the cost recovery associated with the CPCN projects, and it is in that future
proceeding that stakeholders, including IIPA and ICIP, will be able to raise issues
regarding customer class cost allocation.
To assist in the review of this Response and Opposition to IIPA's Objection and
Motion and ICIP's Concurrence, Idaho Power provides the following table of contents:
Description Page
I. Background 3
II. Response to Objection to Modified Procedure 6
III. Opposition to Motion to Consolidate 10
IV. Special Contract Customer Safeguards 15
V. IIPA's Misleading and Unsubstantiated Claims 18
VI. Conclusion 21
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -2

I. BACKGROUND
Case No. IPC-E-24-44
1. Idaho Power's Schedule 19, Large Power Service, requires that customers
with an aggregate power requirement of more than 20,000 kilowatts ("kW") at the same
premises "make special contract arrangements with the Company."' For rate setting
purposes, each special contract customer is considered a separate class with different
conditions and contract terms affecting their rates.2 Because each special contract
customer is its own class (i.e., a class of one), greater flexibility exists to mitigate the rate
impacts of large loads without running afoul of the discrimination prohibitions found in
Idaho law.
2. Micron Technology, Inc. ("Micron") is an existing retail customer of Idaho
Power taking service under an existing Special Contract, Schedule 26, since 1989 for its
Research & Development and other supporting operations served by the Micron
substation and DRAM substation. Micron is expanding its Boise campus to include the
new memory manufacturing fabrication complex (the "Micron FAB") that will be served by
the new CHIP substation through distinct interconnection facilities and Point of Delivery
with a unique operating profile and contract demand that necessitates the establishment
of a second special contract arrangement.
3. The special contract for electric service for the Micron FAB ("Micron FAB
Special Contract"), also referred to as an energy services agreement ("ESA")was entered
into by and between Idaho Power and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Micron, Micron Idaho
See I.P.U.C. No. 30 Tariff No. 101, Schedule 19.
21n the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval of a Special Contract with J.R.
Simplot Company, Case No. IPC-E-13-23, Order No. 33038 at 11-12 (May 19, 2014).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -3

Semiconductor Manufacturing (Triton) LLC, on November 21, 2024, and contains terms
and conditions that are consistent with cost-based principles and methodology included
in previously approved electric service agreements but tailored to fit the specific service
requirements at the Micron FAB. On December 6, 2024, Idaho Power filed an application
requesting an order approving the Micron FAB Special Contract and the rates proposed
in tariff Schedule 28.
4. The Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified
Procedure in Order No. 36446 on January 27, 2025, which stated in pertinent part:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Commission has determined that
the public interest may not require a formal hearing in this matter, and that
it will proceed under Modified Procedure pursuant to the Commission's
Rules of Procedure 201-204, IDAPA 31.01.01.201-.204. The Commission
notes that Modified Procedure and written comments have proven to be an
effective means for obtaining public input and participation.
The Commission also set a 44-day comment deadline, and a 14-day reply deadline.
5. Petitions to intervene in this proceeding were filed by Micron, IIPA, and ICIP.
By various orders, the Commission granted these interventions. Order Nos. 36460,
36479, and 36483.
Case Nos. IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-46
6. Shortly after the Company filed Case No. IPC-E-24-44 regarding the Micron
FAB Special Contract, the Company initiated two CPCN proceedings related to the
Company's procurement of certain resources that were selected as least-cost, least-risk
resources through the competitive bidding process undertaken by the Company pursuant
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -4

to the Public Utility Commission of Oregon ("OPUC") resource procurement rules.3
7. As more fully explained below, the CPCN proceedings, docketed as Case
Nos. IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-46, and filed on December 27, 2024, were the final step
in a multi-phase resource procurement process initiated in September 2022, including the
approximately 15-month competitive bidding rule-compliant process followed by contract
negotiations with developers. The fact that the Company's CPCN cases were filed shortly
after the case related to the Micron FAB Special Contract is coincidental and does not,
as IIPA suggests, indicate that these resources are being procured to serve the Micron
FAB.
8. Since identification of the final shortlist through the rule compliant RFP
process, the Company worked diligently to negotiate and execute agreements associated
with the most cost-effective projects that were able to meet the necessary commercial
operation dates and pursued regulatory approval in turn. Because delays in the regulatory
approval process could impact the ability of the projects to timely come online, as more
fully described in Section III, below, time is of the essence to process the CPCN cases.
9. In both cases the Commission issued Notice of Application and Notice of
Intervention Deadline establishing a 21-day intervention deadline, Order No. 36450
issued on January 30, 2025, in Case No. IPC-E-24-46 and Order No. 36454 issued on
February 3, 2025, in Case No. IPC-E-24-45. Those Orders clearly stated that the
Company was requesting a CPCN and was not seeking binding ratemaking treatment for
3 These included two battery storages facilities providing a total of 100 MW of operating capacity and the
Jackalope Project, consisting of the Jackalope Wind PPA supplying approximately 300 MW to the
Company's system, and the Idaho Power-owned Jackalope Wind Project, also supplying approximately
300 MW of generation.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -5

these projects.4 Rather, the Company represents that it will address the cost recovery
associated with the projects in a future filing.
10. Micron, IIPA, and ICIP have each filed petitions to intervene in both
proceedings.
IIPA'S Objection and ICIP's Concurrence
11. On February 20, 2025, IIPA filed a Motion and Objection in Case No. IPC-
E-24-44 pursuant to Rules 56, 203, 247, and 256, which was supported by ICIP in its
Concurrence filed on February 27, 2025, includes two parts: (i) an objection to the use of
modified procedure and demand for a technical hearing; and (ii) motion to consolidate
Case No. IPC-E-24-44 with the pending CPCN proceedings, Case Nos. IPC-E-24-45 and
IPC-E-24-46. Idaho Power hereby addresses each of these components, in turn, as
follows.
II. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MODIFIED PROCEDURE
12. In its Objection to Modified Procedure, IIPA objects to the Commission's
processing of this case under the rules of modified procedure and requests processing
this case "for a technical hearing to allow the parties sufficient time to vet the special
contract's terms and effect on IPC's existing customers.115 ICIP shares the concerns of
the IIPA "about the impropriety of the use of modified procedure to prosecute this case"
and urges the Commission to "conduct a full evidentiary hearing in which Idaho Power
should be required to present testimony and exhibits supporting its requested rates and
4 Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Two Battery Storage
Facilities, Case No. IPC-E-24-45, Order No. 36454 (Feb. 3, 2025); Idaho Power's Application for Approval
of a Power Purchase Agreement with Jackalope Wind, LLC and a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the Jackalope Wind Project, Case Nos. IPC-E-24-46, Order No. 36450 (Jan. 30, 2025).
5 IIPA Objection and Motion at 4.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -6

contract provisions with Micron and to explain fully the impact of the same on the rates
and terms of service for its other rate classes.116
13. IIPA's objection to modified procedure appears to be primarily based on a
concern that it does not allow for sufficient time or ability to vet the special contract's terms
and effect on IPC's existing customers. For its part, ICIP asserts that the Commission's
rules on modified procedure are vague and lacking standards.
14. The suggestion that modified procedure sets forth a process that is
perfunctory and inherently deficient is without merit. The Rules of Procedure of the
Commission were duly promulgated and provide a reasonable and expeditious framework
for the Commission's proceedings that allow the Commission flexibility in applying the
framework across a range of matters based on consideration of the specific
circumstances and to accommodate evolving contexts.
15. Rule 201 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides the standard
governing modified procedure:
The Commission may preliminarily find that the public interest may not
require a technical hearing to consider the issues presented in a
proceeding and that the proceeding may be processed under modified
procedure, i.e., though written filings in which person views are expressed
through written comments rather than hearing. (Emphasis added.)
Expanding on this concept, Rules 203 and 204 state that "[p]ersons desiring a hearing
must specifically request a hearing in their written comments and explain why written
comments alone are insufficient" and that the Commission will consider any written
comments received and "may set the matter for hearing or may decide the matter and
61CIP Concurrence at 3-4.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -7

issue its orders based on the written submissions." Moreover, parties have the same
rights of discovery regardless of whether a case is processed by modified procedure or
technical hearing.'
16. Based on its review of the initial record in Case No. IPC-E-24-44, the
Commission preliminarily determined that it was appropriate to review this case through
modified procedure. As stated in the Notice of Modified Procedure issued on January 27,
2025, pursuant to Rule 202, the Commission determined that the public interest may not
require a formal hearing to consider the issues in this case and that written comments
have proven to be an effective means for obtaining public input and participation. That
Notice also explained that under modified procedure, persons who would like a hearing
may request one in their written comments with an explanation as to why they believe
written comments alone are insufficient. In setting the comment deadline, the Commission
extended the twenty-one (21) day default deadline under Rule 202.02 by more than
double, providing interested parties forty-four (44) days to file written protests or
comments.
17. The implication that modified procedure is a cursory process that does not
allow a comprehensive evaluation of the issues or development of an adequate record
for the Commission's decision is simply not accurate. To the contrary, Commission has
repeatedly found written comments to be an effective means for obtaining public input
and participation.$
18. Modified procedure provides the opportunity for meaningful stakeholder
IDAPA 31.01.01.222.
8 See, e.g., Order No. 36446 at 2.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -8

participation while facilitating the Commission's interest in streamlining proceedings to
avoid time and expense associated with formal hearings that may not be necessary. The
Commission has discretion to process a case by modified procedure though this
preliminary finding does not preclude future consideration of a hearing if appropriate.
19. Neither IIPA nor ICIP provide an adequate basis for overturning the
Commission's initial determination in Case No. IPC-E-24-44 that the public interest may
not require a formal hearing. Instead, they convolute the issues by seeking to expand the
scope of this case to encompass two CPCN proceedings resulting from procurement of
resources through the competitive bidding process, linked by nothing more than
conjecture and proximity in time. For the reasons more fully explained by the Company
in the following section, IIPA and ICIP's request to consolidate this case with the pending
CPCN proceedings is misplaced and should be denied.
20. Absent the insertion of unrelated and unripe matters from the CPCN cases,
modified procedure continues to be an appropriate way to process this case based on the
particular scope of this proceeding. The suggestion that process by modified procedure
is somehow less meaningful than a technical hearing is belied by the Commission's
longstanding reliance on written comments as an effective means of stakeholder
participation and at odds with the Commission's duly promulgated procedural rules, which
afford the Commission the discretion, based on the evolving issues before it, to determine
when the public interest would be better served by a technical hearing. This analysis is
facilitated by the current process; to the extent that parties feel that a hearing is required,
the Commission's Rules of Procedure provide an avenue for making such a request
through written comments, which provide the Commission the opportunity to review its
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -9

preliminary determination and evaluate whether circumstances have developed such that
a technical hearing may better serve the public interest.
III. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
21. IIPA has requested that the Commission consolidate this docket with the
two pending resource acquisition cases, Case Nos. IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-46, which
it declares are "interrelated" with the instant case. The ICIP supports IIPA's request to
consolidate this docket with what it also claims are "inexorably interrelated dockets
dealing with Idaho Power's Jakalope [sic] Wind CPCN application (IPC-E-24-46) and
Idaho Power's 100 MW battery storage CPCN application (IPC-E-24-45)."
22. Rule No. 247 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01 .01,
provides:
Consolidation of Proceeding (Rule 247). The Commission may
consolidate two (2) or more proceedings for hearing when it finds that
they present related issues and that the parties' rights will not be
prejudiced. In consolidated hearings the presiding officer determines the
order of the proceeding.
The background of the pending CPCN proceedings make clear that it would not be
appropriate to consolidate with this case under the provisions of Rule 247 because the
three cases do not present common issues. As discussed later in this Response,
consolidation could be prejudicial to the Company insofar as it would delay resolution of
the various proceedings, which could have a significant impact on the Company's ability
to meet its obligation to serve.
Idaho Power's 2026 All-Source Request for Proposals — OPUC Docket UM 2255
23. Until the filing of the 2021 Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP"), Idaho Power
had generally been resource-sufficient since the addition of the Langley Gulch natural-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 10

gas fired power plant in 2012. However, Idaho Power rapidly moved to a near-term
capacity deficiency starting in 2023 due to several dynamic and converging factors. Under
Idaho law, Idaho Power has an obligation to provide adequate, just, and reasonable
service on a nondiscriminatory basis to all those that request it within its service area.9
The deficiency first identified in the 2021 IRP has led to a series of requests for CPCNs
to acquire resources to be online in 2023,10 2024,11 2025,12 2026,13 and 2027,14 and
additional resources are expected to be needed beyond 2028.
24. Given the expected resource need in 2026 and 2027 as informed by the
Company's 2021 IRP, Idaho Power initiated a case with the OPUC on September 15,
2022, pertaining to the Company's 2026 All-Source Request for Proposals ('2026 RFP")
pursuant to the competitive bidding requirements imposed by OPUC's resource
procurement rules.15 The bid evaluation process of the various project proposals
submitted through the 2026 RFP was designed to identify the combination and size of the
proposed resources that will maximize customer benefits while ensuring the Company
meets its energy and capacity needs, and ultimately resulted in the identification of
9Idaho Code §§ 61-301, -302, and -315.
10 Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Acquire Resources
to be Online by 2023 to Secure Adequate and Reliable Service to its Customers, Case No. IPC-E-22-13.
11 Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Acquire Resources
to be Online by 2024 and for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with Franklin Solar LLC, Case
No. I PC-E-23-05; Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to
Acquire Resources to be Online by Both 2024 and 2025 and for Approval of an Energy Storage
Agreement with Kuna BESS LLC, Case No. IPC-E-23-20.
12 Case No. IPC-E-23-20.
13 Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Boise Bench
Battery Storage Facility, Case No. I PC-E-24-16; Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for Two Battery Storage Facilities, Case No. IPC-E-24-45.
14 Idaho Power's Application for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with Jackalope Wind, LLC and
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Jackalope Wind Project, Case No. IPC-E-24-46.
15 Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 860-089-0010 et seq.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING,AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO,AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION- 11

various least-cost, least-risk resources intended to fill the identified 2026 and 2027
capacity deficiencies.
25. The resources identified through the 2026 RFP process and subsequently
acquired by the Company, including those resources being considered in Case Nos. IPC-
E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-4616 as cited by IIPA in its Motion and Objection, are necessary to
position Idaho Power to meet its obligation to provide safe, reliable service to its
customers. With respect to the CPCN components of Case Nos. IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-
E-24-46, the Company has come before the Commission as required by Idaho Code §
61-526, which provides that, before constructing "a line, plant, or system," a public utility
providing electrical service must obtain a CPCN from the Commission establishing that
the "public convenience and necessity" requires it.
26. As the Company's recent resource planning and procurement history
demonstrates, IIPA's assertion that the pending CPCN cases are necessitated by the
increased demand associated with Micron FAB Special Contract is simply not accurate.
Rather, the resource acquisitions presented in these cases were pursued as a least-cost,
least-risk method of meeting the system capacity deficits in 2026 and 2027, as identified
by the Company's 2021 IRP, again in the 2023 IRP, and subsequently with the results of
an updated system reliability evaluation and are necessary to position the Company to
fulfill its obligation to reliably serve customer Ioad.17
27. There can be no dispute that Idaho Power has been experiencing sustained
16 See also Case Nos. IPC-E-24-12, Idaho Power's Application for Approval of a Market Purchase
Agreement, and IPC-E-24-16, Idaho Power's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the Boise Bench Battery Storage Facility.
17 See Case No. IPC-E-24-45, Ellsworth Direct Testimony at 15-16 (Dec. 27, 2024); Case No. IPC-E-24-
46, Ellsworth Direct Testimony at 11-12 (Dec. 27, 2024).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING,AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO,AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION- 12

load growth in recent years, thereby requiring the addition of new resources, and the two
cases cited by IIPA in its objection are merely the latest in a series of requests for CPCNs
over recent years. In Case No. IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-46, the Company is requesting
that the Commission grant CPCNs to acquire, respectively: energy storage with 100 MW
of operating capacity necessary to meet the identified capacity deficiency in 2026 and the
wind turbine generator power plant providing approximately 300 MW of generation
necessary to meet the identified capacity deficiency in 2027.18 The scope of those cases
is limited; the Company is not requesting a prudence determination or binding ratemaking
treatment and the issue is whether Idaho Power has satisfied the requirements for a
CPCN pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-526 and RP 112.
Consolidation Would Impermissibly Expand Scope of Case with Potential Harm to
Customers
28. Moreover, it is imperative that those cases are processed without
unnecessary delay because the underlying resource procurement agreements include
provisions that are implicated if regulatory approval is not timely received that could be
detrimental to Idaho Power's ability to continue to meet its obligation to provide safe,
reliable service to its customers. For example, the Jackalope Wind Power Purchase
Agreement ("PPA") includes provisions pursuant to which the failure to obtain
Commission approval within six months of filing (on or before June 27, 2025), will result
in a day-for-day extension of time to the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date.19
Moreover, if regulatory approval does not occur within a specified time period, both the
181n addition, Case No. IPC-E-24-46 seeks Commission approval of a power purchase agreement
supplying an additional 300 MW of generation to the Company's system.
19Case No. IPC-E-24-46, Application at 12-13 (Dec. 27, 2024)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 13

Jackalope PPA and Build Transfer Agreement contain provisions that could result in
termination of those agreements.20
29. IIPA's Motion to Consolidate Case Nos. IPC-E-24-44, IPC-E-24-45, and
IPC-E-24-46, is not only premised on a mistaken foundation, to wit, that the cases are
"interrelated" with the Micron FAB Special Contract case, but seeks to impermissibly
expand the scope of these cases. As noted, the CPCN cases are not rate setting
proceedings and do not involve a request for rate changes or a prudence determination
and so the concerns of IIPA and ICIP about the potential impact of resource costs on
customer rates is not appropriately addressed within these dockets.
30. Consolidating these three cases as proposed by IIPA and ICIP would
significantly broaden the issues in the cases and unnecessarily delay the timely resolution
of those time sensitive matters at great potential prejudice to the Company and its
customers. There is no dispute that the Company must build new resources to serve load
in 2026 and 2027, and the proposed acquisitions are necessary and required to enable
the Company to continue providing reliable and adequate electric service to all of Idaho
Power's customers starting in the summer of 2026 and into the future. A delay in
approving the Company's CPCN requests could hinder its ability to meet its obligation to
provide safe, reliable service to its customers.21
31. For the reasons set forth above, IIPA's request to consolidate should be
denied; far from being a more efficient use of the parties' and the Commission's time and
resources, consolidation of these three disparate cases would unreasonably broaden the
20 Id.
21 See, e.g., Case No. IPC-E-24-46, Application at 12-13 (describing the contractual provisions impacted
by delay in regulatory approval).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 14

scope of issues, burden the record, and delay the proceedings, which is inconsistent with
the requirements for consolidated hearings under Rule 247 and inimical to the
Commission's framework governing intervention.22
32. The Company will make a future filing to address the cost recovery
associated with the resources for which a CPCN is requested, and it is in this future
proceeding that stakeholders, including IIPA and ICIP, will be able to raise issues
regarding customer class cost allocation.
IV. SPECIAL CONTRACT CUSTOMER SAFEGUARDS
33. In its Objection to Modified Procedure, IIPA expresses concerns that the
Micron FAB special contract "does not provide material protections to [Idaho Power's]
other existing customer classes" and that, "[b]ased on IIPA's initial analysis, the special
contract terms may lead existing customers to subsidize Micron by as much as $147
million per year.1123
34. IIPA's claim that existing customers may subsidize Micron is speculative
and unsupported by evidence. The cost-recovery approach in the Micron FAB ESA is
sound, and consistent with Commission-reviewed cost-of-service principles and designed
to ensure that Micron appropriately covers its cost responsibility. The procedural
framework is both appropriate and protective of all customer classes. Additionally,
Company evaluates the interests of all customer classes, and these protections were fully
22 Petitions to intervene are governed by Commission Rules of Procedure 71-75; Rule 72 sets forth the
form and contents required for petitions to intervene including a statement that"allowing the petitioner to
intervene would not unduly broaden the issues." Likewise, Rule 74 provides that the Commission will
grant intervention if doing so does "not unduly broaden the issues" and may grant intervention "subject to
reasonable conditions." IDAPA 31.01.01.074.
23 IIPA Objection and Motion at 3.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 15

considered and balanced in the development of the ESA to ensure that the Commission
was presented with an ESA that it could reasonably and fairly approve.
35. ICIP argues that Idaho Power has not offered any evidence such as prefiled
testimony or an affidavit as to the veracity of the assertions in the application. ICIP then
argues that, "The lack of tendered evidence is fatal in a proceeding to determine retail
rates such as is the case here."24 Idaho Power disagrees for two reasons: (i) it provided
the Micron FAB ESA and supporting evidence with its application; (ii) when Idaho Power
and a commercially sophisticated special contract customer mutually agree on contract
terms and provisions, testimony is often not prefiled, at least in part, because the special
contract customer initial rates will not impact other customer rates.
Robust Customer Protections in the Micron FAB ESA
36. The Micron FAB ESA includes the strongest customer protections the
Company has ever implemented for a special contract. Deliberate steps were taken to
mitigate risks, including:
37. Termination Payment Provisions: The special contract requires the
customer to remain financially liable if its load fails to materialize, ensuring Idaho Power
and its other customers are not exposed to undue financial risk.25
38. Minimum Monthly Billing Demand and Contract Demand: The provisions for
Minimum Monthly Billing Demand and Contract Demand are tied to forecasted load to
ensure fair cost allocation and demand-related cost recovery, mitigating risks if the Micron
load does not materialize as or when projected.26
241CIP Concurrence at 3.
25 See Section 3 of the Micron FAB Special Contract (Attachment 1 to the Application).
26 See Section 5 of the Micron FAB Special Contract.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 16

39. Rigorous Credit Support Requirements: The ESA includes stringent credit
support requirements to protect against default, reinforcing contract reliability and
preventing cost shifts to other customers.27
40. These safeguards demonstrate that the Micron FAB ESA is structured to
mitigate risk and prevent cost burdens from being shifted to the broader customer base.
Fair and Transparent Pricing Methodology
41. The pricing structure in the Micron FAB ESA is designed to ensure Micron
covers the costs associated with its load requirements, preventing undue burden on other
customer classes. This includes:
42. Embedded Capacity Pricing: This method ensures that Micron pays its fair
share of both new and existing resource costs in direct proportion to its expected load.28
43. Marginal Cost-Based Energy Pricing: This methodology determines a
weighted average marginal cost rate using an hourly simulation of power supply
operations and incremental load steps and would be updated annually, ensuring the
Energy Charge accurately reflects the cost of supplying additional energy under near-
term system constraints.29
44. IIPA's claim that Micron would receive a $147 million subsidy is unfounded
and based on flawed assumptions. The embedded demand charge methodology ensures
that Micron continues to pay its proportional share of existing embedded costs, which
would otherwise be fully borne by other customer classes, and incremental resource
investment, allocated proportionately to each customer class.
27 See Section 10 of the Micron FAB Special Contract.
28 See Section 5 and Exhibit 3 of the Micron FAB Special Contract.
29 See Section 7 of the Micron FAB Special Contract.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 17

V. IIPA's MISLEADING AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS
45. The exaggerated claim made by IIPA regarding a supposed subsidy rests
on incorrect assumptions. Specifically
• It assumes a fictional Ievelized annual revenue requirement for
generation and transmission assets that Idaho Power has not yet
sought cost recovery for through customer rates, and
• It assumes that rates filed with the Micron FAB ESA will remain
unchanged through future rate proceedings, leading to all incremental
recovery being assigned to customer classes other than Micron FAB.
46. These assumptions are misleading. IIPA's claim of a 'transfer of wealth' to
Micron is categorically false and premature without a substantiation of this claim. The
allocation of costs for future resources is not at issue in this case and will be fully
addressed in future ratemaking proceedings. Therefore, any conclusions regarding
interclass subsidies remain subject to future cost allocation and ratemaking decisions by
the Commission. IIPA incorrectly assumes that the Micron FAB would not be required to
bear its appropriate share of incremental resource costs in a future rate proceeding.
No-Harm Evaluation Confirms No Inter-Class Subsidy
47. As part of the initial development of the pricing methodology for the Micron
FAB ESA, the Company conducted a "no-harm" evaluation — a counterfactual analysis
comparing scenarios from its 2023 IRP modeled with and without Micron's load. This
analysis was conducted to ensure that the proposed pricing provisions for demand-
related costs would not place upward pressure on other customer rates.
48. For the "no-harm" analysis, the Company began with the 2023 IRP
preferred portfolio (which included Micron's load) and allocated the Micron FAB its load
ratio share of both existing embedded generation and transmission costs, as well as new
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 18

resource investments. In other words, anticipated revenue from Micron was determined
by the underlying special contract pricing provisions, with Micron's demand-related rates
reflecting its proportional share of costs. The analysis spanned a 10-year period,
evaluating the net present value ("NPV") of portfolio costs (covering both existing and
new resources), Micron's allocated per unit cost, and the per unit cost of the rest of the
system. Confidential Attachment No. 1 presents the detailed results of the "no harm"
analysis.
49. In the scenario without the Micron FAB load, the associated load was
removed from the forecast. Aurora's Long-Term Capacity Expansion model was then run
to design a portfolio that would meet system needs without Micron's load included. The
Company recalculated the 10-year NPV of portfolio costs (again incorporating both
existing and new resources) and determined the corresponding per unit system cost.
50. IIPA's position is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the fact that
additional generation and transmission resources are needed to meet future system load
demands regardless of Micron's load. Notably, the scenario without the Micron FAB load
requires incremental capacity in 2026, 2027, and beyond — demonstrating that Idaho
Power's system is growing independent of Micron's load. Although new incremental
resource needs are higher when Micron's load is included, IIPA's claim that the 100 MW
battery storage project in Case No. IPC-E-24-45 was secured to "meet the Micron's
contract demand" is misleading and not supported.30
51. The "no-harm" evaluation confirms that, under the embedded pricing
30 IIPA Motion and Objection at 3.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION - 19

approach proposed in the ESA, existing customers would not subsidize the Micron FAB
facility. Figure 1 summarizes the results of the "no-harm" analysis provided in Confidential
Attachment No. 1 and compares the results of the "with" and "without" Micron FAB
scenarios.
Figure 1
Micron FAB— "No Harm"Analysis Results
Demand-Classified Revenue Req. •
ResourcesScenario Description Existing System I New
2023 IRP Preferred Portfolio
$4,032,393 $1,375,202 $43.54
"with Micron FAB"
Long-Term Capacity Expansion Model Run
$4,032,393 $986,002 $43.71
"without Micron FAB"
*Othercustomers$/MWh is netofMicron FAB load ratio share ofrevenue requirement.
52. In addition to validating the pricing methodology through the "no-harm"
analysis, the Company also evaluated the effectiveness of the "take-or-pay" provisions
contained in the agreement. Notably, the ESA significantly limits Micron's ability to
request changes to Contract Demand and Minimum Billing Demand during its scheduled
ramp, as detailed in Section 5.2 subpart a. of the ESA, Idaho Power and Micron have
agreed to the following terms:
Subject to the following schedule, Micron may increase or decrease the
Scheduled Ramp Contract Demand; provided, however, Scheduled Ramp
Contract Demand shall not increase or decrease more than 30 MW above
or below, ass applicable, the prior year's Contract Demand. Idaho Power
is unable to accommodate changes to the Scheduled Ramp Contract
Demand through calendar year 2027, but subject to the limitations set
forth in the previous sentence, Micron may adjust the Schedule Ramp
Contract Demand for future years as follows: (a) for calendar year 2028,
by providing Idaho Power with written notice by no later than January
1, 2025; and (b) for calendar years 2029 and 2030, by providing Idaho
Power with written notice by no later than January 1, 2026. (emphasis
added)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -20

53. At this point, Micron is unable to make changes to its Contract Demand and
Minimum Billing Demand for 2026, 2027, and 2028.31 Said another way, if Micron's load
ramp is delayed or does not materialize, Micron will still contribute a significant portion of
their proportional share of existing and incremental resources based on the load ramp as
established in the ESA.
VI. CONCLUSION
54. IIPA's Motion and Objection conflates the pricing methodology proposed in
the ESA with broader concerns over customer class cost allocation for future resources.
The issue raised — concerning the allocation of plant investment for future generation and
transmission revenue requirement—will be appropriately addressed in future general rate
cases or other single-issue ratemaking proceedings.
55. The instant case is appropriately addressed under modified procedure. The
efforts of IIPA and ICIP to impermissibly expand the scope of this case by seeking to
consolidate it with Case Nos. IPC-E-24-45 and IPC-E-24-46 that do not involve a request
for rate changes or a prudence determination is misguided and could be prejudicial to the
Company insofar as it delays resolution of the various proceedings, which could have a
significant impact on the Company's ability to meet its statutory obligation to serve.
56. For the reasons more fully set forth herein, Idaho Power respectfully
requests that the Commission continue to process this case by modified procedure and
deny the IIPA's motion to consolidate this case with Case Nos. IPC-E-24-25 and IPC-E-
24-46. The issues raised by IIPA and ICIP are capable of being adequately resolved in
31 See Idaho Power Company's Response to Staff's Production Request No. 5 for changes to the
Scheduled Ramp Contract Demand.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -21

the instant case, and the Company is not opposed to resetting the case schedule to
ensure the parties have adequate time to issue discovery and form their positions and to
develop a robust record for the Commission to consider.
Respectfully submitted this 13t" day of March 2025.
fC�PA
ME AN 601COECHEA ALLEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of March 2025, 1 served a true and
correct copy of Idaho Power Company's Response and Opposition to Idaho Irrigation
Pumpers Association's Objection To Modified Procedure, Demand For Hearing, And
Motion To Consolidate For Hearing With Interrelated Cases and ICIP's Answer to, and
Concurrence with, IIPA's Motion and Objection upon the following named parties by the
method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff Hand Delivered
Chris Burdin U.S. Mail
Deputy Attorney General Overnight Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission FAX
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg No. 8 FTP Site
Suite 201-A (83714) X Email chris.burdin(a�puc.idaho.gov
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Micron Technology, Inc. Hand Delivered
Austin Rueschhoff U.S. Mail
Thorvald A. Nelson Overnight Mail
Austin W. Jensen FAX
Kristine A.K. Roach FTP Site
Holland & Hart LLP X Email
555 17th Street, Suite 3200 darueschhoffja�hollandhart.com
Denver, CO 80202 tnelson(a)_hol land hart.com
awjensen hollandhart.com
karoach(d_)hollandhart.com
aclee hollandhart.com
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Hand Delivered
Inc. U.S. Mail
Eric L. Olsen Overnight Mail
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC FAX
505 Pershing Avenue, Suite 100 FTP Site
P.O. Box 6119 X Email
Pocatello, Idaho 83205 elo echohawk.com
Lance Kaufman, Ph.D. Hand Delivered
2623 NW Bluebell Place U.S. Mail
Corvallis, OR 97330 Overnight Mail
FAX
FTP Site
X Email lance(D_aegisinsight.com
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -23

INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO Hand Delivered
POWER U.S. Mail
Peter J. Richardson Overnight Mail
Richardson Adams, PLLC FAX
515 N. 27t" Street FTP Site
Boise, Idaho 83702 X Email peter(a)_richardsonanadams.com
Dr. Don Reading Hand Delivered
280 S. Silverwood Way U.S. Mail
Eagle, Idaho 83716 Overnight Mail
FAX
FTP Site
X Email dread ing(a mindspring.com
Stacy Gust
Regulatory Administrative Assistant
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO IIPA'S OBJECTION TO MODIFIED
PROCEDURE, DEMAND FOR HEARING, AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING WITH
INTERRELATED CASES AND ICIP'S ANSWER TO, AND CONCURRENCE WITH, IIPA'S MOTION AND
OBJECTION -24

BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-24-44
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTACHMENT 1
NO HARM ANALYSIS