20250820Reply Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
1 Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195 August 20, 2 025IDAHO PU LIC
Gregory M. Adams ISB # 7454 UTILITIES COMMISSION
2 515 N. 27`" Street
3 Boise, Idaho 83702
[phone] DD
4 [phone] Cell
5 uctcr.u.,ricliardsonadanis.com
6
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
7
8
9 IN THE MATTER OF COMMISSION Case No.: GNR-E-25-02
STAFF' S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
to OF A FILING PROCESS FOR WILDFIRE
11 MITIGATION PLANS REPLY COMMENTS OF
POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
12
13
14 COMES NOW, POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as
15 "PotlatchDeltic," and lodges its Reply Comments in response to Comments filed by various
16
other parties and non-party members of the public.
17
I
18 INTRODUCTION:
19
POTLATCH RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS REPLY COMMENTS
20 TO AID THE COMMISSION IN DEFINING THE ISSUES
21 On July 24, 2025, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission"or"PUC")
22
issued Order No. 36686 establishing an August 7, 2025, deadline for Comments to be file in the
23
24 matter of the Commission Staffs Application for Approval of a Filing Process for Wildfire
25 Mitigation Plans ("WMP") through the implementation of the Wildfire Standard of Care Act,
26
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE I

I ("Act"), Order No. 36686 set August 21 as the deadline for Reply Comments.' Initial
2 Comments have been filed by over a dozen entities including both formal Parties and non-party
3
utilities. Several commentors propose to fundamentally undermine the integrity of the Act while
4
5 some others propose to illegally relieve the Commission from its statutorily imposed oversight
6 duties under the Act. It is to these overreaching and risky comments that PotlatchDeltic
7 addresses its Reply Comments.
8 II.
9 BACKGROUND
10 None of the utility, municipal or cooperative utility commentors reflect on the radical and
I I unprecedented nature that the Act's grant of the immunity offers their shareowners or members,
12
to wit: The Act, when properly implemented by the Commission, will give a utility immunity for
13
14 wildfire damages that are caused by its operations. Idahoans who lose their homes, livelihoods
15 and indeed, their very lives will have no recourse when they are harmed by a wildfire that is
16 covered by the Commission's implementation of the Act. The reach of this breathtaking `get-
17 out-of-jail-free' card comes at a very cheap price -- utility compliance with a Commission
18
approved WMP. Utilities that take advantage of this low-cost blanket immunity should not be
19
20 heard to complain about the burdens of compliance. This low-cost quid pro quo, while
21 conveniently ignored by the filing utilities, should instruct all of the Commission's deliberations
22 throughout this proceeding.
23
24
25
The Order specifically invited reply comments to be filed by Staff, but did not preclude reply comments from non-
Staff Parties. PotlatchDeltic lodges these comments to assist the Commission in its deliberations.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GN R-E-25-02
28
PAGE 2

1
2 III
POTLATCHDELTIC' S OPENING COMMENTS
3 REMAIN UNALTERED IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER PARTIES' COMMENTS
4
5 PotlatchDeltic reiterates its original Comments. None of the comments filed by the other
6 parties undermines the validity of PotlatchDeltic' s previously filed Comments.
7 IV
8 BUSINESS AS USUAL
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
9 A WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN
10 Several utility commentors demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the cost of
I I the quid pro quo for their desired `get-out-of-jail-free' card, that is a Commission approved
12
WMP. Immunity from liability isn't a gift from the Legislature, it has to be earned through the
13
14 adoption of a WMP that actually mitigates wildfire risks and wildfire damages over and above
15 business as usual. A common theme in the comments filed by some utilities is that compliance
16 with existing industry standards should be sufficient to satisfy the Act's requirement that a WMP
17 be adopted in order to acquire the desired immunity from liability. For example, one municipal
18
utility asserted that:
19
one alternative approach ... to evaluate an electric municipality's risk mitigation plan
20 ...would be to follow the North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC")
21 process of overseeing reliability standards.2
22
23
24
25
2 Comments of the City of Idaho Falls. From page 10;"to evaluate an electric municipality's risk mitigation plan"
26 the rest of the quote from page 11.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GN R-E-25-02
28
PAGE 3

I Another utility claimed that it would probably be "impossible"to distinguish business as
2 usual from a Wildfire Mitigation Plan. That utility concluded that any exercise attempting to
3
make such a distinction would, at best, be "arbitrary." It claimed:
4
5 In most instances, it is difficult, and probably impossible, to distinguish between the cost
6 attributable to wildfire risk mitigation associated with certain activities—such as
undergrounding lines, installing steel poles, replacing outdated equipment and even
7 vegetation management—and costs of normal operations or costs to improve service or
for reliability. To perform the requested cost-benefit analysis, utilities would need to
8 assign a certain portion of such costs to wildfire risk mitigation. Any such assignment of
9 costs to wildfire mitigation . . . would be arbitrary, at best.3
10 If compliance with existing industry reliability standards were sufficient to earn
I I immunity from wildfire damages caused by a utility's operations, there would have been no need
12
for the Legislature to have required Wildfire Mitigation Plans in the first place. If such were the
13
14 case, the Legislature would have simply granted immunity to utilities that are in compliance with
15 existing industry reliability standards. Clearly, however, that is not what the Act provides. In
16 Section 61-1802 of the Act the Legislature specifically recognized that utilities already comply
17 with existing reliability and safety standards (business as usual) observing that:
18
The legislature recognizes that the public utilities commission oversees electric
19 corporation compliance with applicable Idaho statutes and regulations, and, when
20
applicable, the state-adopted provisions of the national electric safety code.
21 Yet, despite that `recognition,' the legislature went on, in the very same paragraph, to
22 declare that:
23
24
25
26 s Comments of Kootenai Electric Cooperative at P. 11.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GN R-E-25-02
28
PAGE 4

I Proper preparation is crucial to position electric utilities to avoid and respond to wildfire
risk. Knowing what measures should be taken to minimize wildfire risk before a fire
2 occurs and to respond to it when it does occur is central to the affordable, safe, and
3 reliable transmission and distribution of electricity. . . . This chapter is designed to direct
the prudent use of resources by electric utilities to mitigate and respond to wild fire
4 risk...
5 There can be no doubt the Legislature considered but rejected the concept that business a
6
usual4 would constitute a valid WMP. The Commission should reject all arguments asserting
7
8
that compliance with existing reliability or safety standards (a.k.a. business as usual) constitutes
9 a valid wildfire mitigation plan. Doing otherwise eviscerates the very purpose of the Act.
10 That said, the Commentor raises a valid point that the Commission will have to come to
I I terms with. A utility's Wildfire Mitigation Plan will have to exceed current reliability and safety
12
standards in order for the utility to have an approved WMP and thus be deemed eligible for
13
14 immunity from liability. For example, if a utility currently operates under a reliability standard
15 that calls for the physical inspection of all wood poles every ten years, then a WMP that calls for
16 physical inspection of wood poles every ten years will be facially inadequate -- business as usual
17 does not constitute a valid Wildfire Mitigation Plan. In other words, "reliability" and "wildfire
18
mitigation" are distinct concepts and the Commission must reject attempts to conflate the two.
19
20
21
22 H
23
24
25
26 a E.g. compliance with the"national electric safety code."
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GN R-E-25-02
28
PAGE 5

I H
2
3 V
A SELF-REGULATING OR MUNICIPAL UTILITY'S APPROVAL
4 OF ITS OWN WMP IS MEANINGLESS
5 Another troubling, yet common, theme proffered by the self-regulating utilities5 is that
6
the Commission should accept a utility's own governing body's determination that it has
7
8
complied with the Act and is thus eligible for wildfire liability immunity. The City of Idaho
9 Falls proposed several ways it could circumvent the requirement that the PUC review and
10 approve (or reject) its WMP, including its cost-benefit calculations:
I I For example, the Commission could limit its financial inquiries to an electrical
12 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
13 body, in the form of an official resolution, that the governing body has reviewed the costs
associated with its WMP and that the board had determined WMP costs reflect a
14 reasonable balancing of costs with a reasonable reduction of wildfire risk. See Idaho
15 Code § 61-1803(3).6
16 Similarly, Kootenai Electric asks the Commission to abdicate its responsibilities under the Act
17 by deferring approval of its WMP to that utility's board of directors:
18
KEC respectfully submits that the Commission can satisfy the requirements of the Act
19 without usurping non-IOU's governing bodies' authority. For example, the Commission
can satisfy the requirement of the Act by obtaining assurance from each non-IOU's
20 governing body (in the form of an attestation or board resolution, for example) that such
21 governing body has reviewed the feasibility of its WMP and the costs of its
implementation and has determined that (i) the WMP reflects a reasonable balancing of
22 mitigation costs with resulting reduction of wildfire risk, and (ii) the methods of line
23
24
25
s Cooperative and municipal electric utilities.
26 6 Comments of the City of Idaho Falls at p. 9.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE 6

I design for new, planned, and existing lines to mitigate fire risk are financially prudent
2 and reasonably practicable. See I.C. §§ 61-1803(3), 61-1804(1).'
3 Simply put, the problem with the above proposals is that the Act requires that a valid
4 WMP be approved by the Commission, not a city council or a cooperative's board of directors:
5 In a civil action where wildfire-related damages are being sought against an electric
6 corporation, there is a rebuttable presumption that the electric corporation acted without
negligence if, with respect to the cause of the wildfire, the electric corporation reasonably
7 implemented a commission-approved wildfire mitigation plan.$
8 On this point, there is no ambiguity in the Act. A "commission-approved" WMP can
9
only be interpreted one way. Because there is only one way to read the legislation, then in order
10
I to acquire their desired immunity from wildfire liability, the city or cooperative's WMP must be
12 approved by the Commission. The Commission has not been authorized to delegate that
13 responsibility and it is especially not authorized to delegate that duty to the very entity that
14 stands to financially benefit from an approved WMP.
15
The late filed Comments by the Idaho Consumer Owned Utilities Association("ICUA")
16
17 suffer from the same wishful thinking. It refuses to accept the fact that only the PUC has the
18 obligation and duty to review and accept or reject WMPs. Although the ICUA claims to have
19 "led the effort in drafting[the Act]based on the ... legislative model ... passed in Utah" it now
20 apparently suffers from `buyers' remorse' in that its comments assert that its members "should
21
be ... exempt from the proposed cost justification requirements." Although claiming to have
22
23
24
7 Comments of Kootenai Electric Cooperative at pp. 8—9.
25 s Idaho Code § 61-1806(1),emphasis provided.
9 The ICUA Comments were lodged after the close of business on the 71'of August and thus have been logged in on
26 the PUC official web site as having been filed on August 8.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE 7

1 "led the effort" to draft the Act, the ICUA now asks the Commission to, for all practical
2 purposes, administratively repeal its operative provisions. According to the ICUA:
3
We [the ICUA] suggest that if not exempted from the overly burdensome proposed
4 requirements, that the IPUC would accept a resolution from the non-PUC regulated
utilities board of directors or city councils affirming that the utilities elected regulators
5 have approved of any costs associated with their plan and that they are justified.'°
6
Of course, and as noted earlier, the Act does not authorize the Commission to delegate its
7
8
statutory obligation to review and approve or reject WMPs. Most certainly the Act does not
9 contemplate self-approval of WMPs by the very entities who stand to financially gain from their
10 approval—and at the expense of Idahoans who will, one day, inevitably be placed in harm's way
i i by a wildfire associated with an Idaho utility.
12
13 VI
SELF-REGULATING AND MUNICIPAL
14 UTILITIES THAT SUBMIT WMPS DO SO VOLUNTARILY
15 AND THEREBY CONSENT TO PUC AUTHORITY
16 Another common theme from several of the non-regulated utilities is the assertion that
17 the Commission will be overstepping its authority when it engages in the investigation necessary
18
to achieve a fair balancing of the costs and benefits of WMP's proffered by non-regulated
19
20
utilities.'' This red herring argument misses the point. Non-regulated utilities are not required t
21 submit WMPs and are not therefore subjected to PUC authority. If a non-regulated utility files a
22
23
24
25 io Comments of the Idaho Consumer Owned Utilities Association at p.4, page 2 in the original filing. (Note
pagination inserted by the Commission does not necessarily comport with pagination in the original comments.)
26 " See e.g.; Comments of the City of Idaho Falls at 8—9 and Comments of Kootenai Electric Cooperative at 8.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GN R-E-25-02
28
PAGE 8

I WMP, it does so voluntarily. Hence non-regulated utilities are not subjected to Commission
2 oversight, rather they voluntarily submit to that oversight by asking for approval of their WMPs
3
by the Commission. However, once a non-regulated utility voluntarily submits a WMP for
4
5 Commission approval, it consents to the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate all aspects of
6 the plan for compliance with the Act. Obviously, if a non-regulated utility does not want to
7 `suffer' Commission oversight it is not required to develop a WMP and file it for PUC approval
8 in the first place. Therefore, complaints of ceding sovereignty to the PUC fall flat. Self-
9
evidently, however, a WMP that has not been vetted nor approved by the Commission is
10
I meaningless under the immunity provisions of the Act. Even after a non-regulated utility has
12 filed its WMP with the Commission it still has an `off ramp' if it doesn't like the breadth of the
13 Commission's investigation because the Commission's rules of procedure allow any party to
14 withdraw an application without the consent of the Commission or other Parties. See Rule 68 of
15
the Commission's Rules of Procedure. Thus, the non-regulated utility remains in control of its
16
17 own destiny if it chooses not to take advantage of the immunities offered by the Act.
18 VII
WILDFIRE REPORTING IS A
19 KEY PIECE OF THE PUZZLE
20 Staff makes an eminently reasonable request that utility compliance reports include a list
21
of"any fire that ignites within a % mile of utility infrastructure," as well as any fire that burns
22
23 into a utility's infrastructure. Staff explains that the requested information is necessary for a
24 complete understanding of the fire risk each utility is exposed to. PotlatchDeltic agrees.
25 Surprisingly several utility commentors object to the request that they report on fires that ignite
26 within 1/4 mile of their infrastructure. Utility objections to having to report on fires that ignite
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE 9

I within a mere 1,300 feet of their facilities demonstrates a surprisingly cavalier attitude to the
2 imminent danger and risks implicated by fires in such close proximity to inherently dangerous
3
and electrically charged distribution and transmission lines.
4
5
Utility objections to the Staff's fire reporting request are unwarranted and misplaced.
6 Several utilities object because there are other entities that produce such reports. For example,
7 Kootenai Electric Cooperative says that such reports are available from:
8 State Fire Districts
9 Local Fire Districts
Idaho Department of Lands
to National Interagency Fire Center
National Fire Incident Reporting System
1 I Integrated Reporting of Wildfire Information System
12
The City of Idaho Falls also adds to the list by referencing the:
13
14 Wildland Fire Application Information Portal
15 The Joint Utilities join in the chorus reiterating essentially the same arguments made by the non-
16 regulated utilities.
17 The utility complaints that such reporting is overly burdensome12 ring hollow—especially
18
in light of all of the resources they list(see above) from which such reports can be prepared. It is
19
20 not the responsibility of the Commission to identify and collect information about historic fire
21 activity in the vicinity of the infrastructure for which utilities are seeking immunity from wildfire
22 liability. It is, however, necessary data for the Commission to evaluate in fulfilling its
23
24
25
'Z Comments of the City of Idaho Falls at p. 7,Joint Utility Comments at p. 1 I and Comments of Kootenai Electric
26 Cooperative at p. 9.
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GN R-E-25-02
28
PAGE 10

I obligations relative to the balancing of the costs and risks of each utility's individual wildfire
2 mitigation plan. The utilities' objections to providing the wildfire incident reports should be
3
rejected.
4
5 Respectfully submitted this 201h day of August 2025
6 By:
Peter R chardson
7 Richardson Adams, PLLC
8
Attorneys for PotlatchDeltic Corporation
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE 1 i

1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 201" day of August 2025, a true and correct copy of the within
2 and foregoing REPLY COMMENTS was served by electronic copy only, to:
3
Rocky Mountain Power
4 Idaho Public Utilities Commission Joe Dallas
Adam Triplett 825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
5 Deputy Attorney General Portland, OR 97232
6 PO Box 83720 .oseph.dallas(d)paciticorp.com
Boise, Id 83720-0074 datarequest i0acificorp.com
7 secretary uc.idaho.gov Mark Adler
adam.triplettawpuc.idaho.gov Rocky Mountain Power
8 Monica Barrios-Sanches 1407 W. N. Temple, Ste. 330
9 Commission Secretary Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Idaho Public Utilities Commission mark.alderCcc4pacific-porp.com
10 Monica.bariossanches( .;puc.idaho.gov
1 I Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc. Avista Utilities
12 Michael G. Andrea, Esq. Anni Glogovac, Counsel for
Thomas Maddalone Regulatory Affairs
13 9015 W. Lancaster Rd Elizabeth Andrews, Sr. Manager
Rathdrum, ID 83858 of Revenue Requirements
14 mandrea kee.com PO Box 3727
15 tmaddalone(ckec.com 1411 E. Mission Ave, MSC 27
anni.21ogovacgavistacorp.com
16 liz.andrewsCavistacorp.com
17 USTelcom—The Broadband Association Idaho Department of Lands
18 B. Lynn Follansbee, VP Strategic Initiatives J.J. Winters, Attorney
Kathleen Slattery Thompson, VP Reg. & Legal Tyre Holfeltz, Wildfire Risk
19 601 New Jersey Avenue NW, Ste. 600 300 N. 6" St., Ste. 103
Washington, DC 20001 Boise, ID 83702
20 ksthompson(Austelecom.org [e-mail]
21 lollansbee c&r ustelecom.org tolfeltz a,ida.idaho.gov
22
23
24
25
26
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELT[C CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE 12

1
2
3 Idaho Power Company City of Idaho Falls
PO Box 70 Idaho Falls Power
4 Boise, Idaho 83707 Stephen Boorman,
Megan Goicoechea Allen Interim General Manager
5 Donovan E. Walker PO Box 50220
6 Lisa C. Lance 140 S. Capital Ave.
Tim Tatum Idaho Falls Idaho 83402
7 Riley Maloney sboorman:uisowet�
Connie Aschenbrenner
8 mgoicoecheaallen�gidahopowencom City of Idaho Falls
9 dwalker@idahopowencom Idaho Falls Power
l lance(c,,idahopower.com Michael A. Kirkham,
10 dockets(c4idaho power.com City Attorney
ttatum_cc idahopower.com 375 "D" Street
l t rmaloney r idahopower.com Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
12 caschenbrenner(c�idahopower.com @ifpowengov
13 Bennett Lumber Products, Inc.
Idaho Forest Group
14 Manulife Investment Management
15 Molpus Woodlands Group
Stimson Lumber Company
16 c/o Pendrey P. Trammell
Smith & Malek, PLLC
1 601 E. Front Ave., Ste. 304
18 Coeur d' Alene, ID 83814
service(d)smithmalak.com
19
20
21 -
By: Peter J. Richardson ISB # 3195
22
23
24
25
26
27 REPLY COMMENTS OF POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION
GNR-E-25-02
28
PAGE 13