20250612Answer in Opposition.pdf

RECEIVED
June 12, 2325
IDAHO PUBLIC
I Peter J. Richardson UTILITIES COMMISS ON
515 N. 271h Street
2 Boise, Idaho 8702
3 (208) 938-790 1(office)
[phone] (mobile)
4 peter cgrichardsdonadams.com
5
6 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8 IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER CASE No.: IPC-E-25-13
9 COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
10 FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE TO RECOVER INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO
I I COSTS ASSOCIATD WITH THE HELLS POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO
CANYON COMPLEX RELICENSING IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PETITION
12 PROJECT FOR THE COMMISSION TO
RECONSIDER, ALTER, OR AMEND
13 ORDER NO. 36622
14
Pursuant to Rule 57.02 of the Rules of Procedure ("Rule" or "Rules") of the Idaho Public
15
16 Utilities Commission (the "Commission"), the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power("ICIP") by
17 and through its attorney of record, Peter J. Richardson, hereby requests the Commission deny
18 Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power" or the "Company") Petition to "Reconsider, Alter or
19 Amend Order No. 36622 ("Petition").
20
PROCEDURAL PRELIMINARIES
21
22 Idaho Power makes it clear that its Petition is not filed pursuant to the Commission's
23 rules addressing reconsideration of a final order as contemplated in Rules 331 -334. Those rules
24 require a response within seven days of filing. Although partially stylized as a petition"to
25
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER, ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE- I

I reconsider," Idaho Power's pleading is not a petition for reconsideration of a final Commission
2 order. Thus, the timeframe for lodging a responsive pleading to a general "petition" such as this
3
is twenty-one days. See Rule 57. The ICIP's Answer is filed well within that timeframe (seven
4
5 days). Nevertheless, any person may file an answer to a petition by taking advantage of the full
6 21-day response period, which response period ends on June 26, 2025.
7 Should the Commission grant Idaho Power's request that Order No. 36622 be rescinded,
8 altered or amended, Idaho Code Section 61-624 requires that notice be given of the
9
Commission's intent to do so. Idaho Code Section 61-624 provides:
10
The commission may at any time, upon notice to the public utility affected, and after
l 1 opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of complaints, rescind, alter amend any
12 order or decision made by it.
13 Only after an opportunity to be heard as in the case of complaints may the Commission issue an
14 order amending, altering or rescinding Order No. 36622. Rule 57.02 provides that Answers to
15
Complaints are to be filed within 21 days after service of the complaint. Assuming the
16
17 Commission acts on Idaho Power's Petition immediately at the conclusion of the 21 day
18 comment period to respond to Idaho Power's instant Petition to Reconsider herein -- and then
19 notices an additional 21 days for comment on a possible recission, alteration or amendment of
20 Order 36622 -- that would put the final public comment deadline at July 24, which is six days
21
AFTER the current deadline for comments to be filed on the order Idaho Power seeks to rescind
22
23
24
25
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER,ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE-2

I -- Order 36622.1 Idaho Power's Petition to Reconsider, if granted, will actually consume more
2 time than is currently contemplated in the schedule established in the Commission's order that
3
Idaho Power now seeks to rescind!
4
5 The Company's Petition raises some procedural issues that the ICIP will address here.
6 That said, the ICIP reserves the right to respond substantively pursuant to the Commission's
7 established schedule in this matter—as with any other members of the public who may also be
8 inclined to comment on the Company's proposed thirty-million-dollar rate increase. The ICIP's
9
Third Set of Production Requests to Idaho Power address substantive issues and are still
10
II outstanding with responses due by June 23, 2025.
12 THE MIS-QUOTE
13 Idaho Power's Petition makes much of the fact that the ICIP mis-quoted a recently
14 amended (2022) version of Rule 125.03. The error was highlighted by Idaho Power on page 8
15
of its petition. There the Company provided the revised rule in legislative format thusly:
16
The information required by this rule is41;e must be clearly identified, easily understood,
17 and pertain enly to the proposed rate change.
18
The ICIP appreciates Idaho Power's diligence identifying the ICIP's inadvertent error.
19
20
Fortunately, the ICIP's error did not translate into a Commission error. Pages 5 —6 of the order
21
22
23
24
25 i This assumes there is no time consumed in the interim for a decision meeting or Commission deliberations.
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER,ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE- 3

I to which Idaho Power objects contains the correct updated language from Rule 125.03. In Order
2 No. 36622 the Commission correctly stated the rule as:
3
The information required by this rule must be clearly identified, easily understood, and
4 pertain to the proposed rate change.2
5 Simply put, the Commission got it right. Idaho Power's kerfuffle about the ICIP's misquote is
6
beside the point -- the Commission, in its order, cites to and clearly relies on the correct wording
7
of the rule.
8
9 RECONSIDERATION STANDARD NOT MET
10 Idaho Power's Petition to Reconsider cites but doesn't quote multiple Idaho Supreme
I I Court cases for the proposition that parties can bring "any question theretofore determined"to
12
the attention of the Commission to allow the Commission an opportunity to modify its decision.3
13
14 Idaho Power fails, however to identify the legal standard for reconsideration of a Commission
15 order and relies instead on the Company's own subjective standard for whether or not the notice
16 in question actually complied with Rule 125.03. There are, after all, sideboards on what issues
17 the Commission may be required to rehear—which sideboards Idaho Power fails to identify in its
18
Petition.
19
20 The purpose of reconsideration is not to just allow all previously litigated issues to be
21 relitigated, but the purpose is to afford the Commission an opportunity to rectify mistakes before
22
23
24
z Order No. 36622 at pp. 5—6.
25 3 Petition at P. 4.
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER, ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE-4

I the aggrieved party is permitted to appeal the final decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. For
2 instance, in the Washington Water Power case cited, but not quoted, by Idaho Power the Court
3
declared:
4
The purpose of an application for the rehearing provided by statute, and it must be
5 presumed to have a useful purpose, is to afford an opportunity to the parties to bring to
6 the attention of the Commission, in an orderly manner, any question theretofore
determined in the matter, and thereby afford the Commission an opportunity to rectify
7 any mistake made by it before presenting the same to the Supreme Court." Idaho
underground Water Users Ass'n v Idaho Power Co., 89 Idaho 147, 154, 404 P.2d 859,
8 862 (1965) (quoting Consumers' Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 40 Idaho 772, 775,
9 236 P. 732 (1925)).4
to
II In a simple declarative sentence, the Commission made the following unmistakable and
12 incontrovertible finding:
13 [T]he Commission finds that the Company's combined notice of PCA, FCA, and HCC,
issued with the heading "Idaho Power Requests Rate Decrease in Annual PCA Filing'
14 did not present clearly identifiable information about the customer impacts of the HCC
15 case that would be easily understood by the Company's customers.
16 Idaho Power is unable to refute the Commission's simple declarative finding. In fact, Idaho
17 Power concedes that whether its notice would be confusing to its customers is "arguably
18
debatable" and is subjectively determined.5 The Company doesn't even allege that the
19
20 Commission is mistaken in its finding, only that the Company would have decided the question
21 differently. It is, of course, not Idaho Power's prerogative to subjectively determine whether or
22
23
24
4 Washington Water Power v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 101 Idaho 567, 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122(1979).
25 s Petition at P. 7.
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER, ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE-5

I not it has complied with the Commission's rules. Apparently, Idaho Power believes that
2 reasonable minds can differ on the clarity of the Company's notice about a thirty-million-dollar
3
annual rate increase that was buried under a banner headline announcing a"Rate Decrease."
4
5
Fortunately for its ratepayers, it is not Idaho Power's role to interpret and administer the
6 Commission's rules.
7 IDAHO POWER'S ARGUMENTS ARE
8 IRRECONCILABLY INCONSISTENT
9 Idaho Power argues that combining the notice for the Hell Canyon Complex permanent
10 annual rate increase with the notices for the rate decreases associated with the annual Fixed Cost
I I Adjustment and the annual Power Cost Adjustment6 is not confusing and that combining notices
12
for the three rate changes (two decreases and one increase) is a model of clarity. In fact, the
13
14 Company argues that:
15 The combined notice was intended to be more transparent about total impact to current
rates resulting from the aggregate of cases under review and less confusing to customers.
16 7
17 The Company claims that combining three notices -- for two temporary rate decreases and one
18 permanent rate increase is a model of clarity for its ratepayers. However, now it argues that
19 having just two separate notices—one for the GRC and one for the HCC is too confusing. The
20 Company argues that the temporal juxtaposition of its single notice for the current general rate
21
case ("GRC") with a single notice of the HCC rate increase is too confusing for its customers to
22
23
24
6"HCC","FCA"and"PCA"respectively.
25 7 Petition at p. 8.
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER,ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE-6

I understand, and that it"will create unnecessary confusion."' The Company makes this argument
2 despite the fact that the GRC notice and a new HCC notice would be separate and distinct
3
notices and each would stand on its own merits. The Company simply can't have it both ways.
4
5 SUMMARY
6 Giving the public adequate notice of proposed rate increases is fundamental due process.
7 Any obfuscation of the same, no matter the good (or negligent) intention of the utility in doing
8 so, cannot be countenanced. Monopoly providers of essential public services must be held to a
9
strict standard of compliance with this Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission's
10
11 findings and conclusions in Order No. 36622 are fair and are based on a reasonable and
12 defensible understanding of its obligations under the Idaho Public Utilities Laws. For all the
13 foregoing reasons, the ICIP respectfully requests the Commission deny Idaho Power Company's
14 petition for the Commission to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Order No. 36622 and issue its
15
decision affirming the schedule and findings in that Order.
16
17 Dated this 12th day of June 2025.
18
19 Peter J. Richardson
20
21
22
23 _
24
25 s Petition at p. 5.
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER,ALTER, OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE- 7

1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 12th day of June 2025, a true and correct copy of the within
2 and foregoing INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO
3 POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER, ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER
NO. 36622 was served, pursuant to Rule 61.03, by electronic copy only, to:
4
Commission Secretary Megan Goicoechea Allen
5 Idaho Public Utilities Commission Donovan E. Walker
6 PO Box 83720 Matt Larkin
Boise, ID 83720-0074 Dockets
7 secretary(a)puc.idaho.gov Idaho Power Company
Boise, Idaho 83702
8 Monica Barrios-Sanches mizoicoecheallen(a idaho power.com
9 Commission Secretary dwalkerAa idahopower.com
Idaho Public Utilities Commission docketidahopower.com
to monica.bariossanches(&Vuc.idaho.gov mlarkin(a idahopower.com
11
1
12 ()
13 By: Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER,ALTER,OR AMEND ORDER NO.
27 36622.
28 IPC-E-25-13
PAGE- 8