20250730Interlocutory_Order_No_36698.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 30,2025
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) CASE NO. IPC-E-25-13
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES ) ORDER ON PETITION
FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE TO RECOVER )
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HELLS ) NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF
CANYON COMPLEX RELICENSING ) PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
PROJECT )
ORDER NO. 36698
On March 14, 2025, Idaho Power Company ("Company") applied to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission("Commission")requesting an order authorizing an adjustment to customer
rates of$29,708,787, effective June 1, 2025, to recover incremental Allowance for Funds Used
During Construction ("AFUDC") costs associated with the Hells Canyon Complex ("HCC")
relicensing project, contingent upon the outcome of the Power Cost Adjustment ("PCA") update
filed April 15, 2025 ("Application"). Application at 1-2.
On April 9, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Application, Notice of Intervention
Deadline, and Notice of Modified Procedure setting a May 9, 2025, initial comment deadline, and
a May 16, 2025, Company reply comment deadline. Order No. 36535. The Commission granted
intervention to the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power ("ICIP"). Order No. 36600. On May 9,
2025, Commission Staff("Staff') and ICIP filed comments. On May 16, 2025,the Company filed
reply comments.
On May 30, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Suspension of Proposed Effective
Date and Notice of Public Comment Deadline. Order No. 36622. In its order, the Commission
found that"the Company's combined notice of PCA, [Fixed Cost Adjustment("FCA")], and HCC
. . . did not present clearly identifiable information about the customer impacts of the HCC case
that would be easily understood by the Company's customers."Id. at 6. The Commission ordered
the Company to "issue a new notice to its customers as soon as reasonably practicable consistent
with this Order and the Commission's Rules of Procedure and inform the Commission when such
notice has been issued."Id. at 8.
ORDER ON PETITION
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
ORDER NO. 36698 1

PETITION
On June 5, 2025, the Company filed a Petition for the Commission to Reconsider, Alter,
or Amend Order No. 36622 ("Petition"). The Company argued that the combined notice complies
with the Commission's Rule of Procedure 125. Petition at 5-8. The Company also argued that any
additional public notice would likely cause more confusion for customers. Id. at 9. The Company
based its petition on Idaho Code §§ 61-624 and 61-626.Id. at 2.
ANSWER TO PETITION
On June 12, 2025, ICIP filed an Answer in Opposition to Idaho Power Company's Petition
for the Commission to Reconsider, Alter, or Amend Order No. 36622 ("Answer"). IIPA argued
that the Company did not satisfy the standards for reconsideration. Answer at 4-6. IIPA noted that
the Company did not even allege that the Commission was mistaken in its finding, only that the
Company would have decided the question differently. Id. at 5. IIPA also argued that the
Company's arguments for reconsideration were irreconcilably inconsistent. Id. at 6-7.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-501, 61-502,
and 61-503. The Commission is vested with the power to "supervise and regulate every public
utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the [Public
Utilities Law]."Idaho Code§ 61-501.The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,charges,
rules,regulations,practices,and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether they are just,
reasonable,preferential,discriminatory,or in violation of any provision of law,and to fix the same
by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and 61-503.
Having reviewed the record, the Petition, and all submitted materials, the Commission
grants the Petition. Although Order No. 36622 is an interlocutory order that is not subject to
reconsideration under Idaho Code § 61-626, the Commission can alter or amend it under Idaho
Code § 61-624.Accordingly, after considering the arguments presented in the Company's Petition
and ICIP's response, the Commission hereby alters and amends its findings in Order No. 36622.
Specifically,the Commission now finds that the initial notice provided to customers complied with
the Commission's Rule of Procedure 125. This finding makes it unnecessary for the Company to
re-issue notice of the HCC relicensing rate increase, so the requirement will be removed from
ORDER ON PETITION
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
ORDER NO. 36698 2

Order No. 36622. However, this finding is not without reservation as is discussed in more detail
below.
Order No. 36622 held that the Company failed to provide sufficient notice of the proposed
rate increase related to the HCC relicensing project under Commission Rule of Procedure 125. See
Order No. 36622 at 6. Specifically, Order No. 36622 stated, in pertinent part:
[T]the Company's combined notice of PCA, FCA, and HCC, issued with the
heading "Idaho Power Requests Rate Decrease in Annual PCA Filing" did not
present clearly identifiable information about the customer impacts of the HCC case
that would be easily understood by the Company's customers. While the
Commission is not generally opposed to the Company presenting customers with
information pertaining to the combined effects of multiple cases, such combined
effects should be presented as additional secondary information,with each case and
its individual effects presented to customers clearly and easily understood in
isolation. This is especially true in instances such as this where the facts, analysis,
and associated impact on customers of the HCC case are unrelated to the facts and
analysis of the PCA and FCA cases.
Rule 125.01(a)requires a notice of a proposed rate increase to"briefly explain the utility's
need for additional revenue and the dollar amount requested, and give the proposed overall
percentage change from current rates as well as the proposed percentage increase in revenue for
each major customer class." Likewise, the notice for a proposed rate reduction must include the
reason for the decrease, the total dollar amount involved, and the proposed percentage reduction
for each primary customer group. Regardless of whether a rate increase or decrease is sought, the
associated notice must also state that the new rate is only a proposal, subject to public review and
Commission approval. Finally, the notice must also explain where to view the underlying
application, how to submit written comments, and that customers can get updates by subscribing
to the Commission's RSS feed. Rule 125.01(c) and(d). Further, the above-described information
must be"clearly identified" and presented in a way that it can be "easily understood."Rule 125.
The notice the Company provided to customers in this case about the proposed rate increase
to recover costs for the HCC relicensing project satisfied the above-described requirements. The
notice disclosed that the Company sought to recover a total of$29.70 million in costs related to
the HCC relicensing project, resulting in an overall rate increase of 1.85% and similar percentage
increases to the Residential, Small General Service, Large General Service, Large Power, and
Irrigation customer groups. The notice explained that the Company needed this rate increase "to
ORDER ON PETITION
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
ORDER NO. 36698 3

recover ongoing financing costs associated with the [HCC] project."Finally, the notice stated that
new rates were subject"to public review and approval by the [Commission],"included instructions
for viewing the application, submitting written comments, and subscribing to the Commission's
RSS feed for future updates. This information satisfies the requirements of Rule 125.01(a)-(d).
In Order No. 36622 we faulted the Company for overemphasizing the combined effect of
the PCA,FCA,and HCC on rates in the combined notice provided to customers.Certainly,a reader
could interpret the notice as focusing a reader's attention on the overall net rate decrease created
by combining the annual PCA and FCA filings(which happen to result in a rate decrease this year)
and the long-term HCC rate increase. This interpretation is further supported by the notable and
concerning delay—nearly thirty days—between the filing of this case and the issuance of notice
to customers. Furthermore, the notice did not clarify that the rate increase related to HCC was a
long-term rate change versus the PCA and FCA cases,which vary from year to year. Despite these
concerns, the notice still minimally complies with the requirements of Rule 125.
We encourage the Company to improve its customer notices in light of the Commission's
concerns cited herein so that its customers are better informed of the full long-term impact of rate
changes, consistent with the underlying intent of Rule 125. Rule 125 was revised in 2022 for the
very purpose of permitting joint notice when multiple rate changes occur simultaneously, such as
the PCA, FCA and HCC cost recovery at issue in this case. However, Rule 125 permits the
consolidation of multiple rate proposals to reduce confusion—not create it or obscure long-term
rate increases by timing them with short term decreases.
Since all comment deadlines have passed and the Company no longer needs to re-issue
notice of the HCC relicensing rate increase, the record is now closed and the case is ready for
deliberation. However, despite altering and amending Order No. 36622 as described above, there
is inadequate time under the current procedural schedule to deliberate the case and issue a final
order before the current August 1, 2025, effective date. Therefore,the Commission hereby further
suspends the effective date of the HCC rate increase as set forth below.
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Commission finds that the Company's proposed
effective date does not provide adequate time to evaluate the Company's proposal. Pursuant to
ORDER ON PETITION
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
ORDER NO. 36698 4

Idaho Code § 61-622, the Commission suspends the proposed changes until October 1, 2025, or
until the Commission issues an earlier order.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Company's Petition is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Order No. 36622 is altered and amended as set forth
above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company's proposed effective date of June 1, 2025,
is further suspended until October 1, 2025, or until the Commission issues an earlier order.
THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, not a final and appealable Order of the
Commission. The period of reconsideration will not begin until the final Order is issued.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 30th day of
July 2025.
G
EDWARD LODGE, P XSIDENT
�L gtll�
J R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
DAYN HA IE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
I JJQt6�
Mon4a'-NrrA-ea460z
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-25-13_He11sCanyon\orders\IPCE2513_Ord_on_Pet_at.doex
ORDER ON PETITION
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE
ORDER NO. 36698 5