20250821Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
August 21, 2025
IDAHO PUBLIC
Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454) UTILITIES COMMISSION
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Irion Sanger(ISB No. 12488)
Sanger Greene, PC
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, OR 97214
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF COMMISSION ) CASE NO. GNR-E-25-01
STAFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL )
OF AN OVERSIGHT PROCESS FOR THE ) NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN
ACQUISITION OF LARGE SUPPLY-SIDE ) POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S
ELECTRICAL RESOURCES ) RESPONSE COMMENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The Northwest& Intermountain Power Producers Coalition ("NIPPC")hereby submits
its response comments to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or"Commission").
NIPPC continues to support the IPUC exerting regulatory oversight during the request for
proposal ("RFP") development phase. NIPPC also continues to support Staff s proposed RFP
rules,but that support is premised on the understanding that the utilities will be following more
stringent rules in other states. As explained in NIPPC's opening comments, Idaho's three
utilities are each a multistate utility that will also be subject to neighboring states' preexisting
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 1

bidding rules for each RFP that is submitted to the IPUC for approval, and those preexisting
rules in certain neighboring states (particularly Utah and Oregon) are more detailed and targeted
at mitigating a utility's bias in favor of utility-owned resources. Those rigorous RFP bidding
requirements provide real value to Idaho ratepayers,but NIPPC agrees it is not necessary to
duplicate such procedures in Idaho. However, the IPUC should ensure that its new rules do not
contradict or supplant other states' rules.
In these response comments,NIPPC responds to certain assertions by Idaho Power,
PacifiCorp (dba Rocky Mountain Power) (hereafter"Rocky Mountain Power"), and Avista in
their opening comments.
II. RESPOSNE COMMENTS
A. Response to Idaho Power's Opening Comments
At the outset,NIPPC reiterates its understanding that Idaho Power would still follow the
Oregon Public Utility Commission's ("OPUC") RFP rules for its RFPs even if the IPUC adopts
Staff s proposed IPUC rules that would also apply to such RFPs. Idaho Power makes no
suggestion in its opening comments that it would cease attempting to comply with the OPUC
rules for its future RFPs if the IPUC adopts its own rules, and with that understanding NIPPC
continues to support Staffs proposed rules. However, if Idaho Power ceases to follow the
OPUC's RFP rules,NIPPC stresses that Staffs proposed RFP rules here, standing alone, would
be insufficient to ensure fair and unbiased RFPs. In that case, a more involved generic process
would be necessary before the IPUC to develop more prescriptive RFP rules, similar to those
applicable in Utah and Oregon, to ensure that Idaho Power's RFPs are as fair and competitive as
possible.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 2

NIPPC generally agrees with Idaho Power to the extent that it asserts that the OPUC's
RFP process is designed to be a fair and competitive RFP process,l and that Staff s proposed
IPUC rules would not contradict with the existing process established in the OPUC's rules.2
However,NIPPC does not agree with all points in Idaho Power's opening comments,
particularly certain criticisms of the OPUC's RFP rules and the length of time it took Idaho
Power to complete its first RFP where it attempted to follow those rules (the 2026 RFP).
Idaho Power primarily takes issue with the length of time it has taken Idaho Power to
complete an RFP under the OPUC's RFP rules.3 NIPPC generally supports timely processing of
RFPs, including shortening RFP schedules, supporting waivers of certain procedural
requirements, and supporting expedited RFPs,particularly when the RFP includes no option for
a utility-owned resource. However, it is important to bear in mind some key points. First,the
OPUC is currently engaged in a rulemaking to improve its RFP process by, among other
potential changes, allowing for more expedited RFPs in certain cases, such as RFPs without a
utility-ownership option that introduces the risk of ownership bias and the need for significant
regulatory and independent evaluator oversight.4 Second, Idaho Power's 2026 RFP had a
' Idaho Power's Opening Comments at 2.
2 See id. at 6(stating Staff s proposal would provide"the opportunity for the Company to adhere to
the competitive bidding guidelines in each jurisdiction without the burden of additional steps that would
extend an already lengthy process.").
3 See id. at 2 ("the Company believes the process is too lengthy, especially during times of rapid
changes in Idaho Power's capacity deficiency.").
4 Although the rulemaking remains ongoing,the OPUC Staff has proposed the following
circumstances under which it would recommend expedited RFP review:
• PPA-only RFP: Scrutiny of the RFP design can be simplified because it does not need to address
ownership bias.
• Prior-approved RFP with updated procurement targets but no other modifications: Staff may
draw on the learnings from the prior approved RFP, including observations and recommendations
from the IE.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 3

lengthy review process, in large part, because Idaho Power made numerous unreasonable
proposals, such as the 20% imputed debt bid adder for power purchase agreement("PPA") bids
discussed in NIPPC's opening comments. The RFP would have been processed more
expeditiously if Idaho Power had followed the OPUC's rules and prior precedent. Idaho Power
should be able to efficiently build off of the approved design in that first RFP for its subsequent
RFPs.
Idaho Power also cites to Staff s comments in Case No. IPC-E-24-12, regarding the
Powerex market purchase agreement, as having criticized the OPUC's RFP rules, but a review of
those Staff comments confirms that prescriptive RFP rules have value. The Powerex market
purchase agreement emerged from Idaho Power's 2026 RFP, which was the first RFP in which
Idaho Power attempted to fully comply with the OPUC's RFP rules.5 Notably, Staffs comments
found"the RFP and selection process were fair and unbiased."6 To be sure, Staff found that
"[t]his comprehensive oversight is time consuming and laborious,but Staff believes it adequately
ensures that the entire selection process is fair and unbiased."' Staff primarily faulted Idaho
• Prior-approved RFP with redlined modifications: Staff may draw on the learnings from the prior
approved RFP,including observations and recommendations from the IE, and a limited review of
proposed RFP design changes.
In the Matter of Pub. Util. Comm'n of Ore., Investigation into Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and
Request for Proposal(RFP)Modernization, OPUC Docket No. 2348,Order No. 25-111, at App A at 36
(March 24,2025).
5 The OPUC oversaw Idaho Power's 2026 RFP in OPUC Docket No. UM 2255. The resulting
resources included the Powerex 200 MW market purchase agreement,the 150 MW Company-owned
Boise Bench battery energy storage system,the hybrid Jackalope Wind 300 MW utility-owned/300 MW
PPA, and the Crimson Orchard 100 MW solar PPA and 100 MW energy storage agreement. See Case
Nos. IPC-E-24-12 (Powerex market purchase),IPC-E-24-16 (Boise Bench Batteries), IPC-E-24-46
(Jackalope PPA and CPCN), IPC-E-25-10 (Crimson Orchard).
6 Staffs Comments,Case No. IPC-E-24-12, at 3 (July 23, 3014).
Id.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 4

Power for designing an RFP that Staff believed had the effect of excluding long lead resource
types, such as nuclear, natural gas, and hydropower.8
Staff s comments in Case No. IPC-E-24-12 identified three "systematic flaws in the
current RFP process[,]"but these three issues do not justify radical changes to the existing
process. First, "Staff encourage[d] the Company to get ahead of the capacity deficit and issue
RFPs early enough to allow long lead time projects to be considered."9 That is a flaw with the
way Idaho Power designed and timed its RFP, not a problem with the applicable RFP rules.
Second, Staff indicated that it"agree[d] with the Company's concern that the OPUC competitive
bidding process is too lengthy."10 However, as noted above, the process was lengthier than it
needed to be due to unreasonable proposals Idaho Power initially made, and subsequent RFPs
should not take as long to review and approve. Further changes are currently under development
at the OPUC to allow for more expedited RFPs in certain cases. Third, Staff found that"many
fundamental and irreversible decisions are made during the initial RFP development with the
OPUC; therefore, the Idaho Commission should be involved during this stage of the process."11
This point supports the IPUC asserting regulatory jurisdiction early in the RFP development
phase to ensure that Idaho's policy goals are met, but it does not support abandoning the key
features of the existing RFP rules that protect ratepayers against the risk of biased RFPs.
8 See id. at 2-3 ("Because a winning bid would have to complete its project by 2026,projects with
lead times of more than 3 years were effectively eliminated from consideration. . . . Staff recommends
that the Company include the full range of resources in future RFPs,regardless of the product
development timeline").
9 Id. at 6.
10 Id. at 7.
11 Id. at 7.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 5

Further, Staff recommended that Idaho Power"should consider a benchmark gas project
in future solicitations, especially if the Company successfully reduces lead time constraints."12
As NIPPC noted in its opening comments, nothing in the OPUC's RFP rules precludes Idaho
Power from bidding a gas-fired plant in any RFP. Indeed, in Idaho Power's ongoing 2028 RFP
subject to the OPUC's oversight, Idaho Power did include a gas-fired benchmark resource,
which the OPUC has now acknowledged as part of the final shortlist of Group 2 bids.13 Another
notable feature of this ongoing RFP was the bifurcation into Group 1 bids with commercial
operation dates by April 1, 2028, and Group 2 bids with later commercial operation dates.14 This
feature enabled longer lead time bids within the RFP,without compromising Idaho Power's
ability to procure resources needed for a nearer term capacity deficit in the summer of 2028.
Thus, the IPUC Staff s key concerns with Idaho Power's first RFP to follow the OPUC rules (the
2026 RFP) appear to have been largely addressed in Idaho Power's second RFP to follow the
OPUC rules (the 2028 RFP). This demonstrates that the OPUC's RFP rules—while prescriptive
to combat against potential utility-ownership bias—are not an impediment to necessary resource
acquisition during Idaho Power's ongoing capacity deficiencies.
Idaho Power also asks that the proposed IPUC RFP rules "exclude those resources the
Company procures under contractual arrangements with a specific customer."15 In support of
this request, Idaho Power states that it"received a waiver of the competitive bidding rules from
the OPUC for resources procured on behalf of a customer" in OPUC Docket No. UM 2226.
12 Id. at 3.
13 See In the Matter of Idaho Power Co,Application for Approval of 2028 All Source Request for
Proposals to Meet 2028 Capacity Resource Need, OPUC Docket No.UM 2317,Order No. 25-327, at 1 &
App. A at 7 (Aug. 21,2025)(listing Idaho Power's benchmark 167 MW Bennett gas-fired plant as the top
ranked bid on the final shortlist acknowledged).
14 See id. at 3.
15 Idaho Power's Comments at 8.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 6

However, as is evidenced by Idaho Power's own comments, the waiver of the OPUC's RFP rules
for a customer-specific resource is not automatic; the rules still apply, and the Company must file
a petition for waiver that demonstrates that the circumstances warrant such a waiver.'6 While
NIPPC expects that such a waiver would ordinarily be granted, there may also be circumstances
where a waiver should not be granted. For example, although granting a waiver of the RFP rules
where the customer-specific resource is a PPA, more complex questions would arise if the
customer-specific resource is a utility-owned resource that would be placed in rate base, which
would present more complex risks of cross-subsidization and potential harm to other customers.
Thus, instead of exempting such customer-specific acquisitions from any oversight,NIPPC
recommends that the IPUC require a petition for waiver of the RFP rules for a customer-specific
resource so that the Commission may evaluate the unique circumstances of the proposal. This
could be accomplished by narrowly amending Staff s waiver rules to include the possibility of a
waiver of an acquisition made for a specific customer.
B. Response to Rocky Mountain Power's Opening Comments
NIPPC supports Staffs proposal that the waiver process be limited to rare situations and
opposes Rocky Mountain Power's proposal to expand the wavier options. Specifically, Rocky
Mountain Power recommends against Staffs proposal to limit the waiver process to "rare
situations" and instead appears to seek more open-ended language that would allow for waivers
on a case-by-case basis.17 Staffs proposed rules would only apply in cases of significant
resource acquisitions over 100 MW or more, which is a relatively limited circumstance to start,
16 In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company, Investigation into Proposed Green Tariff,
OPUC Docket No.UM 1953, Order No. 19-213, at 1 &App.A at 1-6(July 20,2019) (finding OPUC's
RFP rules apply to customer-specific acquisitions through a"green tariff',but granting waiver of the
rules).
17 Rocky Mountain Power's Opening Comments at 2.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 7

and a waiver would result no IPUC oversight before issuance of such an RFP. Thus, Staff
properly proposed that waivers should be rare, limiting the waiver option to emergencies and
"unsolicited economic-based opportunities."18 Rocky Mountain Power's proposal to also
potentially grant waivers in cases where the utility sought the counter parry's offer would
significantly expand the waiver option and could erode the applicability of the Commission's
relatively modest RFP rules. In sum,NIPPC does not support Rocky Mountain Power's
expansive amendment to Staff s proposed waiver options.
However,NIPPC does not oppose Rocky Mountain Power's requested clarification
regarding recovery of costs to retain an independent evaluator where required by the IPUC's
rules.19 NIPPC takes no position on the forms of rate recovery mechanism recommended by
Rocky Mountain Power.
C. Response to Avista's Opening Comments
Avista states that it"has identified potential areas of conflict within the proposed
language and the Company's other jurisdiction."20 However, Avista's concerns are inadequately
explained, and the clarifications it seeks appear to be unnecessary.
First, Avista asserts that Staffs proposed Guiding Principle (2) should be modified"to
explicitly acknowledge the potential for jurisdictional differences" so that "multi jurisdictional
utilities can transparently incorporate state-specific requirements into their selection criteria
without conflicting with the overarching least-cost, least-risk framework. ,21 While NIPPC does
18 Staff s Application at Attachment A at 2.
19 Rocky Mountain Power's Opening Comments at 3.
20 Avista's Opening Comments at 1.
21 Avista's Opening Comments at 1-2.
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 8

not oppose this clarification, it appears to be unnecessary because nothing in Staff s proposed
rules proscribes Avista from complying with neighboring state's laws in its procurements.
Second, Avista expresses concern that Staff s proposed RFP application process in
Section(1)(a) "may result in procedural misalignment" due to Washington's "prescriptive filing
requirements that must be met prior to issuing an RFP, including detailed pre-approval processes
and timeline."22 Avista's concern is difficult to evaluate because it provides no specific
explanation of the procedural misalignment it envisions and makes no proposal to edit Staffs
proposed rules to address the issue. NIPPC expects that it would not oppose Avista's request for
procedural flexibility to align the Idaho and Washington processes in the most efficient manner
possible to the extent a conflict arises in a specific RFP, so long as each state's substantive
requirements can be adequately addressed in the respective forums. However,NIPPC opposes
the suggestion in Avista's comments that a perceived procedural misalignment between
jurisdictions would warrant wholesale wavier of the IPUC's RFP rules.23 As noted above, aside
from a potential amendment to waive applicability to customer-specific resources,NIPPC does
not support further expansion of the proposed waiver process.
III. CONCLUSION
As explained above and in NIPPC's opening comments,NIPPC supports the IPUC
exerting regulatory influence over the design of RFPs issued by Idaho utilities,but is concerned
that Staffs proposed rules, standing alone, are not detailed or prescriptive enough to ensure truly
competitive RFPs. However, in light of Staffs communication that its proposed rules are not
22 Avista's Opening Comments at 2.
23 See Avista's Opening Comments at 2(stating,"The waiver process under Section(2)of the
proposal may mitigate some of the potential conflicts,however,it is not entirely clear.").
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 9

intended to discourage Idaho utilities from complying with applicable rules of neighboring
states, NIPPC does not object to Staff s proposed rules.
Respectfully submitted on August 21, 2025,
Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Lt;�1� I-al
Irion Sanger(ISB No. 12488)
Sanger Greene, PC
4031 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, OR 97214
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Northwest and Intermountain Power
Producers Coalition
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY certify that I have on this 21 st day of August, 2025, served the foregoing
document by electronic mail to the following:
Monica Barios-Sanchez Mark Alder
Commission Secretary Joe Dallas
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rocky Mountain Power
P.O. Box 83720 1407 West North Temple, Ste 330
Boise, ID 83720-0074 Salt Lake City, UT 84116
[e-mail] [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Chris Burdin
Mike Louis Austin Rueschhoff
Deputy Attorney General Thorvald A.Nelson
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Austin W. Jensen
P.O. Box 83720 Kristine A.K. Roach
Boise, ID 83720-0074 Holland& Hart, LLP
[e-mail] 555 17th St., Ste. 3200
[e-mail] Denver, CO 80202
[e-mail]
Donovan Walker [e-mail]
Matt Larkin [e-mail]
Idaho Power Company [e-mail]
PO Box 70 [e-mail]
Boise, ID 83707-0070
[e-mail] Peter J. Richardson
[e-mail] Richardson Adams, PLLC
[e-mail] 515 N. 27th St.
Boise, ID 83702
David Meyer [e-mail]
Shawn Bonfield
Avista Corporation
PO Box 3727
1411 East Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA 99220-3727
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
By:
Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
NORTHWEST & INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION'S RESPONSE
COMMENTS
GNR-E-25-01 —PAGE 1 I