20250807Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
August 7, 2025
IDAHO PUBLIC
Michael A. Kirkham/ISB # 8939 UTILITIES COMMISSION
CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
375 D. Street
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for City of Idaho Falls, Idaho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. GNR-E-25-02
IN THE MATTER OF COMMISSION ) COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO
STAFF'S APPLICATION FOR ) FALLS, IDAHO, TO COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF A FILING PROCESS FOR ) STAFF'S APPLICATION FOR
WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANS ) APPROVAL OF A FILING PROCESS
FOR WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANS
Pursuant to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's ("Commission") Rule of
Procedure 203, and the Notice of Modified Procedure issued in this proceeding on July 24, 2025
(Order No. 36686), the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho, ("Idaho Falls") respectfully submits these
comments in response to Commission Staff s Application for a Wildfire Mitigation Plan Filing
Process ("Application") and Staffs Supplement to Application ("Supplement") in the above-
captioned matter.
Idaho Falls requests that the Commission exempt electric municipal distribution systems
from the proposed cost justification wildfire mitigation plans ("WMPs") requirements. The
Wildfire Standard of Care Act ("Act") requires the Commission to ensure that WMPs satisfy
certain minimum requirements and requires the Commission to consider the feasibility and cost of
implementation of WMPs. See Idaho Code § 61-1804(1). Given that electric municipalities
operate with small employee teams and limited technical resources, Staffs proposed cost-
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 1 of 11

justification analysis would create an undue burden for electric municipalities. This burden would
lead to increased expenses that,ultimately,would be borne by Idaho Falls's ratepayers.In addition,
the need for a cost justification analysis is largely unnecessary—an electric municipality already
has natural incentives and mechanisms in place that keep rates low. The Commission can ensure
that electric municipalities' WMPs meet the Act's minimum requirements through less
burdensome means, such as a resolution from the electric municipality's governing board.
In a similar vein, Idaho Falls requests that the Commission ensure that all required
information be actually useful and necessary to review and approve WMPs and their annual
updates. For example, the requirement to report all fires within a quarter mile of utility
infrastructure does not, by itself, reveal wildfire risks. This is especially true for Idaho Falls's
service territory, which is entirely an urban and suburban cityscape with a full-service fire
department. Idaho Falls's fire department responds to hundreds of fire calls a year. However, only
a minute fraction is related to Idaho Falls's electrical utility. Limiting a WMP's requirements to
only what would actually be useful in mitigating wildfire risks would encourage electric
municipalities to participate in filing WMPs by ensuring that the requirements are reasonable.
Finally, Idaho Falls respectfully requests that the Commission establish a schedule for
submitting WMPs for approval that will ensure that wildfire mitigation plans can be reviewed and
approved by the Commission before the 2026 wildfire season.
I. Background
In the 2025 legislative session,the Idaho Legislature adopted the Wildfire Standard of Care
Act. 2025 Idaho Sess. Laws Ch. 249 (S.B. 1183) (codified as Idaho Code § 61-1801, etseq.). The
purpose of the Act was to prepare for and respond to wildfire risks presented by electrical utilities.
Idaho Code § 61-1802. The primary mechanism to promote the Legislature's interest in
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 2 of I I

minimizing wildfire risks is the requirement for Investor Owned Utilities ("IOU") to prepare a
WMP. Idaho Code § 61-1803.
In addition to Commission-regulated IOUs, the Act also permits electric corporations that
are not public utilities—including electric municipalities like Idaho Falls—to adopt and file WMPs
with the Commission. Idaho Code § 61-1803(2)(b). The Commission is then required to approve
or reject the WMP within six (6) months. Idaho Code § 61-1804(1). The Act authorizes the
Commission to "establish measures for the electric corporation to prepare for and address wildfire
risk and shall establish the electric corporation's duty to its members and the public."Idaho Code §
61-1805. Once a utility prepares and implements a Commission-approved WMP,the Act provides
a rebuttable presumption that a utility was not negligent with respect to the cause of a wildfire.
Idaho Code § 61-1806(1).
On June 18, 2025, Commission Staff submitted its Application. The Application staggers
the timing for IOUs and non-IOUs, like Idaho Falls, to submit a WMP for the Commission's
review and approval. Application at 1. Electric municipalities, under this proposed timing
schedule, are required to file their WMPs last and, "no earlier than December 1, 2025," if they
decide to file one. Id. at 6-7.
On July 10, 2025, Commission Staff submitted its Supplement providing additional
information and Staff s guidelines and recommendations for the component parts of an acceptable
WMP. Supplement at 1. Staff also requested that electric municipalities and cooperatives file a
"Need to Know" document detailing the size and complexity of the non-IOU utilities. Id. at 1-2.
II. Comments
CITY respectfully submits the following comments in response to Staffs Application and
Supplement.
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 3 of 11

A. The Commission should adopt separate WMP reporting requirements for electrical
municipalities that reflect the size and scope of their impacts on wildfire risks and
their sovereign, governmental nature, instead of Staffs recommended one-size-fits-
all approach.
Electrical municipalities, like Idaho Falls, are governmental sovereignties regulated and
directly controlled by their elected governing boards. In Idaho Falls, the elected City Council sets
policies and rates for Idaho Falls Power's customers pursuant to the limits imposed by the
Constitution of the State of Idaho and Idaho law. The governing boards for electric municipalities
responsibly operate and deliver non-profit electrical services to the public, often for a lower cost
to consumers than many IOUs.' Electric municipalities, like Idaho Falls, accomplish all this with
fewer employees and fewer resources than IOUs have.
The Commission should exempt, or at least limit, the WMP information that electric
municipalities are required to provide to the Commission. The Act requires that WMPs be
developed using approaches and methods that are designed to protect the public's interest and are
reflective of and commensurate with the size and complexity of the electric corporation's
operations and of the nature of the wildfire risk. Idaho Code § 61-1803(3). However, Staff has
recommended more of a one-size-fits-all approach—the recommended requirements do not
distinguish IOUs and electrical municipalities. See generally Staff s Supplement to Application
("Supplement"). The proposed process would require electric city systems to provide the
Commission with detailed,granular data,monthly targets,cost-benefit analyses,goals,and metrics
for each of the components of a WMP.The sheer volume of the proposed feasibility documentation
that electric cities would be obligated to provide is extraordinarily burdensome for Idaho Falls.
' Unlike IOUs,the public policy concerns with the potential for monopolistic adoption of unreasonable utility
rates that an unscrupulous IOU may adopt are greatly ameliorated because electrical municipalities,like Idaho Falls,
are governed by elected representatives.See Idaho Power&Light Co. v Blomquist,26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083, 1088
(1914);Kiefer v. City of Idaho Falls,49 Idaho 458,289 P. 81, 83 (1930). In the event that the City Council of Idaho
Falls opted to impose unreasonable electric power rates,the Council could be directly removed by its citizens.
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 4 of 11

Idaho Falls is a relatively larger electric municipal system; smaller municipalities and co-ops
operate with even smaller employee teams and fewer technical resources than Idaho Falls. As a
consequence, the burden placed on smaller electrical municipalities will be even more severe. The
anticipated burden of the proposed process diminishes the benefit for all small electrical municipal
systems of mitigating wildfire risk through the Commission's WMP process. This burden runs
directly counter to the Act's requirement that the Commission adopt review procedures that "are
reflective of and commensurate with the size and complexity of the electric [municipality's]
operations and fire risk." Idaho Code § 61-1803(3).
The burdensome one-size-fits-all approach recommended by Commission Staff seeks
information and analysis that goes beyond what is necessary to evaluate an electric municipality's
risk mitigation plan. For example, the requirement that electric municipalities provide a cost-
benefit analysis to justify their wildfire risk mitigation expenditures is of particular concern to
Idaho Falls. Supplement at 6. Fire risk mitigation is one of many considerations that Idaho Falls
makes in providing electricity to its customers. These decisions, like whether to install overhead
or underground lines, wood or steel poles, replacing old or outdated equipment, and other routine
and normal operations, require a holistic approach of many factors. These factors include
reliability, future needs, infrastructure component quality, compatibility of equipment or
replacement parts, as well as fire mitigation considerations. As a result, the wildfire cost-benefit
analysis will necessarily require examination of these other case-by-case holistic factors that, at
best, would not provide any useful information to the Commission regarding Idaho Falls wildfire
mitigation efforts and, at worse, effectively allow the Commission a seat at the Council's table for
all of Idaho Falls's new line designs and operational upgrades.
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 5 of 11

Alternatives exist to Staff s recommended one-size-fits-all approach. For example, one
alternate approach would be to follow the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
("NERC")process of overseeing reliability standards.NERC's processes include periodic positive
affirmations of compliance from an electrical municipality's governing board, with periodic spot
checks and audits. This process would be less onerous and a less administratively costly method
for electrical municipalities to demonstrate compliance. Further, the NERC compliance process is
already familiar to many electrical utilities, including Idaho Falls.
Staff should also consider that electric municipalities are engaged in non-utility activities
that directly reduce the utility side's wildfire risk. For example, Idaho Falls has a robust Ere
department with the capability to respond to any reported fire within Idaho Falls's geographic
limits within five (5) minutes. The Commission should take into account electrical municipalities
with fire departments in setting standards for a city's WMP. This unique fire protection feature,
which is provided by Idaho Falls's general tax funds and not electrical utility funds, should play a
part in establishing whether an electrical municipality's wildfire mitigation plan meets the
requirements of the Act.
In short, the one-size-fits-all approach does not take into account the uniqueness of
electrical municipalities, like Idaho Falls. The unique characteristics of electrical municipalities
should exempt, or at least limit, the WMP information that electric municipalities are required to
provide to the Commission.
B. Staffs recommendation that utilities report fires is unfairly burdensome to urbanized
service areas,like Idaho Falls's geographic limits, and should be rejected.
The Commission should also adopt rules that take into consideration the unique fire
mitigation efforts that are already a part of what electrical municipalities already do as part of their
broad governmental role. Staff s Supplement recommends that"each compliance report contain a
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 6 of 11

list of any fire that occurred within 1/4 mile of the utility's infrastructure or any fire that has burned
into the utility's infrastructure during the compliance year, explaining any unofficial or official
reported causes of ignition for the fire,the approximate location of the start of the fire, and if there
was any damage to company infrastructure, structures, property or any persons." Supplement at
7. As applied to Idaho Falls's concentrated and urbanized service area, this requirement is overly
broad,unduly burdensome,and exceeds the requirements of the Act.While Idaho Falls appreciates
that this requirement is an apparent compromise from Staff s original position, as applied to Idaho
Falls,the effect of the compromise is as if nothing has changed. Idaho Falls's utility infrastructure
permeates its entire city,meaning that the quarter-mile requirement virtually blankets Idaho Falls's
entire service area. In addition, the requirement to report "fires" is understood to be broader than
the term "wildfire." As a consequence, Idaho Falls anticipates that compliance with this
recommendation will provide the Commission with hundreds of fire reports from Idaho Falls
detailing the various routine domestic and accidental fires that are completely unrelated to utility-
caused wildfires that the Act seeks to mitigate against. Not only will this requirement unfairly
burden Idaho Falls, but it will likely burden the Commission with irrelevant and distracting
documentation that is unrelated to the goal of mitigating wildfires.
If Staff desires mechanisms to monitor wildfires that occur in Idaho, less burdensome
alternatives exist. For example, the United States Department of the Interior has already created
and maintains a rigorous wildfire reporting and tracking tool: the "Integrated Reporting of
Wildland-Fire Information (IRWIN)" system. United States Department of the Interior, Wildland
Fire Application Information Portal (August 6, 2025) available at https:llwww.wildfire.govl
application/irwin-integrated-reporting-wildfire-information. This hourly-updated system is likely
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 7 of 11

far superior to anything that can be accomplished by annualized WMP fire reporting produced by
electrical utilities.
In any case, the Act limits what the Commission can require an electric corporation to
submit in its annual WMP reports. Idaho Code § 61-1803(5). The Commission is limited to
"documentation describing the development and adoption of the wildfire mitigation plan's
components and measures, the wildfire mitigation expenditures, and the work taken to develop
and adopt the plan's components and measures." Id. The Act does not require utilities to report
the existence or causes of fires,and Staff s recommendation would constitute an overreach because
fire reporting does not assist the Commission in monitoring a utility's WMP adoption efforts, the
expenditures made, or work taken to implement components or measures of the WMP. See Idaho
Code § 61-1803(5).
C. The Commission should workshop annual reporting standards that will be specific in
addressing the uniqueness of electric municipalities and other non-IOUs and that will
respect electric municipalities' right to govern.
The one-size-fits-all requirements proposed by Staff,particularly those that seek to"justify
the utility's expenditures," are aligned with the Commission's historic role of overseeing and
regulating IOUs to protect rate payers. Supplement at 6. Idaho Falls has no objection to the
Commission regulating IOU expenditures through the WMP process. That said, treating electric
cities the same as IOUs oversteps the Commission's legal authority. Electric municipalities are not
public utilities and are not subject to rate regulation by the Commission. Idaho Code § 61-104;
see also, Lamont Bair Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 165 Idaho 930, 938 (2019); Snake
River Homebuilders Ass'n v. City of Caldwell, 101 Idaho 47, 49 (1980). While the Act permits the
Commission to ensure that electrical municipalities' WMPs meet minimum requirements and are
feasible, the Act does not authorize the Commission to use the WMP to engage in rate regulation
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 8 of 11

of a city's electric utility. See Idaho Code § 61-1804(1). Requirements that ask an electrical
municipality to "justify its expenditures" wades beyond the reasonable check of a city's WMP
compliance, as permitted by the Act, and inappropriately opens the door to the Commission
reviewing a city's utility rates and operational policies. See Supplement at 6.
The Commission can satisfy the requirements of the Act without infringing on an electrical
municipality's governing bodies' authority. For example,the Commission could limit its financial
inquiries to an electrical municipality by requiring an explanation on how a city's budgetary
process is tied to wildfire mitigation. Other options could include obtaining assurance from a
governing body, in the form of an official resolution, that the governing body has reviewed the
costs associated with its WMP and that the board has determined WMP costs reflect a reasonable
balancing of costs with a reasonable reduction of wildfire risk. See Idaho Code § 61-1803(3). Or
the board could provide the Commission with a manual that prescribes the electrical municipality's
methods for new or upgraded line designs that will mitigate fire risk,with a board finding that the
guidelines are financially prudent and practicable. See Idaho Code § 61-1804(1). Idaho Falls
respectfully encourages the Commission to adopt rules that limit information submissions from
electrical municipalities to those that are actually useful and necessary to promote the explicit
requirements of the Act and that, at the same time, respects the separate sovereignty of Idaho's
cities.
Even if Staff s recommended annual MWP reports requirements do not infringe on an
electric municipality's separate sovereignty, the recommended MWP requirement goes beyond
what is required by the Act. Staffs recommended requirements include cost reporting broken
down on a monthly basis, explanations for failure to meet the Act or the Commission's
requirements and orders, and the above-described fire reporting. Supplement at 7. In contrast, the
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 9 of 11

Act requires "documentation describing the development and adoption of the wildfire mitigation
plan's components and measures, the wildfire mitigation expenditures, and the work taken to
develop and adopt the plan's components and measures."Idaho Code § 61-1803(5).
The Commission should not issue an order mandating Staff s annual report
recommendation. Instead, the Commission should require Staff to coordinate and workshop with
all stakeholders to develop requirements that are more useful in mitigating wildfire risks and avoid
unnecessary burdens on the Commission and utilities. In particular,the Commission should require
specific coordination between Staff and electric municipalities and co-op systems to address the
uniqueness of these small,non-IOU electrical utilities that cannot be regulated by the Commission.
Idaho Falls respectfully submits that this process will likely reveal to Staff and the Commission
that certain exemptions and limitations from WMP annual reporting for electric municipalities are
appropriate and consistent with the wildfire mitigation intent of the Act.
D. The Commission should establish a WMP filing schedule so that all eligible
participants have the opportunity for an approved WMP before the 2026 wildfire
Season.
Staff has recommended a proposed a staggered schedule for filing WMPs in which IOUs
file their WMP first and then, beginning on December 1, 2025, electrical municipalities and all
other electrical corporations may file their WMPs. The goal of this plan is to "provide sufficient
time for the Commission to review and approve or reject all currently anticipated WMPs before
the next fire season,defined as May 10—October 20 each year by the Idaho Department of Lands."
Id. at 2.nl. Idaho Falls is concerned, given that Staff anticipates that the Commission will need to
review at least twelve (12) WMPs before the beginning of the 2026 fire season. See id. at 6-7.
Idaho Falls concedes that the Act permits the Commission to adopt a staggered schedule and may
also require that electrical municipalities wait their turn. Idaho Code § 61-1803(2). However, since
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 10 of 11

the Commission may take six months to review or reject a WMP,the December 1, 2025, deadline
technically would permit the Commission to approve WMPs submitted on December 1, 2025, at
the end of May 2026, after the beginning of the fire season. As a result, Idaho Falls respectfully
requests that the filing schedule that the Commission adopts provide electric municipalities with
an opportunity to have an approved WMP before May 1, 2026.
III. Conclusion
Idaho Falls appreciates the opportunity to submit comments for consideration in this
proceeding. Idaho Falls respectfully requests that the Commission adopt separate WMP reporting
requirements that account for the peculiarities of municipal electrical systems. Such WMP
reporting requirements should focus on providing the Commission with information that is useful
and necessary to assist electrical municipalities in mitigating against wildfire. The Commission
should not adopt any reporting standard that would permit the Commission to evaluate an elected
governing body's exercise of sovereign authority to set the rates, policies, or governing standards
for the operation of a municipal electrical system. Other burdensome requirements,not authorized
by the Act, including the annual duty to report fires within a service area, should be rejected.
Finally, the Commission should endeavor to provide a process so that all eligible participants can
have the opportunity to receive an approved WMP before the 2026 wildfire season.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of August 2025.
City of Idaho Falls, Idaho
lsl Michael A. Kirkham
Michael A. Kirkham
City Attorney
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 7th day of August 2025, served the foregoing
Comments of Idaho Falls, Idaho, upon all parties of record in this proceeding by electronically
providing a copy thereof to:
Commission Staff:
Secretary Monica Barrios-Sanchez Adam Triplett
Commission Secretary Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Building 8, PO Box 83720
Suite 201-A Boise, ID 83702-0074
Boise, ID 83714 Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Taylor Thomas
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83702-0074
Email: [e-mail]
Atlanta Power Company:
Nick Jones
Owner/Operator
Atlanta Power Company
235 W. Yuba Vista Drive
Atlanta, ID 83716:
Email: [e-mail]
Avista Corporation:
Anni Glogovac Elizabeth Andrews
Counsel for Regulatory Affairs Sr. Manager of Revenue Requirements
PO Box 3727 PO Box 3727
1411 E. Mission Ave., MSC-13 1411 E. Mission Ave., MSC-27
Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Spokane, WA 99220-3727
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]
w/copy to:
[e-mail]
Bennett Lumber Products, Inc.
Idaho Forest Group
Manulife Investment Management,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Molpus Woodlands Group,
Stimson Lumber Company:
Pendrey P. Trammell
Smith+Malek, PLLC
601 E. Front Ave., Ste. 304
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Email: [e-mail]
Kootenai Electric Cooperative:
Thomas Maddalone Michael G. Andrea
Safety Director for KEC General Counsel for KEC
9014 W. Lancaster Rd. 9014 W. Lancaster Rd.
Rathdrum, ID 83858 Rathdrum, ID 83858
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]
CTIA:
Matthew DeTura Benjamin Aron
Counsel for External and State Affairs Assistant Vice President, State Regulatory
1400 16th Street NW Affairs
Suite 600 1400 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036 Suite 600
Email: [e-mail] Washington, DC 20036
Email: [e-mail]
Idaho Department of Lands:
J.J. Winters Tyre Holfeltz
Attorney for the Idaho Department of Lands Wildfire Risk Mitigation Program Manager
300 N. 6th Street, Ste. 103 300 N. 6th Street, Ste. 103
Boise, ID 83702 Boise, ID 83702
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]
Idaho Power Company:
Megan Goicoechea Allen Tim Tatum
Donovan E. Walker Riley Maloney
Lisa C. Lance Connie Aschenbrenner
Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70 PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707 Boise, ID 83707
Email: mgoicoecheaallen@idaho Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[e-mail]
PotlatchDeltic Corporation:
Peter J. Richardson Michele Tyler, Esq.
Richardson Adams, PLLC Anna Torma
515 N. 27th St. Wade Semeliss
Boise, ID 83702 Brian Schlect, Esq.
Email: [e-mail] 601 W. First Ave. Ste. 1600
Spokane, WA 99201
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Risch Pisca, PLLC
Attn: Jeremy Pisca
407 W. Jefferson Street
Boise, ID 83702
Email: [e-mail]
Rocky Mountain Power:
Mark Alder Joe Dallas
Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager Senior Attorney
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Portland, OR 97232
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]
USTelecom— The Broadband Association:
B. Lynn Follansbee Kathleen Slattery Thompson
VP Strategic Initiatives and Partnerships for VP, Regulatory and Legal Affairs
USTelecom 601 New Jersey Avenue NW
601 New Jersey Avenue NW Suite 600
Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001
Washington, DC 20001 Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
lsl Michael A. Kirkham
Michael A. Kirkham
City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE